Question Bank

Here is a collection of informed responses to the most common questions on the topic of ecclesiology Here they are categorized under various headings for easy inquiry. 

The list is regularly updated and added to. 

If you have a particular question and require a response that is not included here, or would like a better understanding on particular point, feel free to send an email to hutchingsmusic@gmail.com.

<>< 

Q. 1. “In Matthew 16:18 (‘And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’) the words ‘I will build’ (οἰκοδομήσω—oikodomēsō) are in the ‘Future Indicative Active.’ This tells us that the church is a new entity, distinct to the people of God in the Old Testament, and not something that pre-existed—i.e. the church did not exist prior to Pentecost. How else can the words ‘*I will* build’ be interpreted?”

According to one of the greatest of Greek scholars, A. T. Robertson, “The future [tense] likewise presents accomplished action which in any case may be either momentary, simultaneous, prolonged, descriptive, repeated, customary, interrupted, attempted, or begun, according to the nature of the case or the meaning of the verb” (A. T. Robertson, “Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament” [New York: Doran, 1908], p. 141).

[The] meaning of the verb does not require absolute futurity. What is more important, the meaning of the verb does not require absolute newness. It can well mean that Christ is building up His church into its new and final form. (Source: John Gerstner, “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism” [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991], p. 190)

########################

Q. 2. “In Matthew 21:43 (‘… The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof’), Jesus’s words are a prediction of Israel’s receiving—not losing—the kingdom. The kingdom of God shall be taken from the wicked leaders of Israel, and given to a nation (Israel) bringing forth the fruits thereof. The impious Jewish leaders were not fit to be in the spiritual domain of God’s kingdom which is given to any people who will bring forth the fruits of salvation.”  

[This texts clearly speaks of] the end of the nation of Israel as the chosen people of God. They have been tried and found wanting. God’s patience has been exhausted … It is virtually impossible to imagine any other interpretation of this passage. The Greek word for “nation” in verse 43 (ethnos) is the word characteristically (although not exclusively) reserved for Gentile peoples. Furthermore, the parable of the tenants (verses 33-41), which verse 43 explains, clearly refers to the disobedience of the Jewish *nation* throughout its history. (Source: John Gerstner, “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism” [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991], p. 190)

Jesus declared to the Jews that the kingdom should “be taken from them” (Matt. Xxi. 41f.). The children of the kingdom (the natural and lawful heirs) are to be “cast out” (viii. 11f.). None of those “bidden” are to taste of the marriage supper (Lk. Xiv. 24). The vineyard is to be given to “other husbandmen”; to “a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”; men are to come from the “highways,” from “east and west and north and south,” to partake with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of the marriage supper. (Allis, “Prophecy and the Church,” p. 78)

########################

Q. 3. “In John 10:16, Jesus says: ‘And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold ...’ Do not his words, ‘other sheep [I have] that are not of this fold,’ imply is that these other sheep constitute a separate and distinct ‘fold’ from ‘this fold’?—Two types of believers, both saved by grace through faith, both sheep, but still two folds? … I think there are two folds; why else use the term ‘THIS fold’? It implies another fold exists. Otherwise, it would make more sense to say ‘there are others out there who need to come into the fold.’”

Stay tuned …

########################

Q. 4. “Acts 15:13-21 is said, by covenant theologians, to be a prime example of a NT application to the church of an OT prophecy to Israel. Their contention is that James views the gathering of Gentiles into the church as a fulfilment of Amos 9:11-12. Covenant theologians then argue, ‘See? James is applying Amos 9 to what was going on there and then. Since Amos was addressing Israel, James is conceding that the gathering of the NT church *is* Israel. But Acts 15:13-21 is actually a reference to the Millenium. Amos was prophesying of the day when Christ will come in His glory (at the Second Coming). James was simply showing that there will be Gentile believers at that time, as well as Jewish believers; hence he concluded that Gentiles are not required to become Jewish proselytes by circumcision.”

Against this bizarre suggestion we simply note the following considerations. First, as we say, this is far-fetched in this context (already nearly two thousand years far-fetched). Second, there had always been some Gentile believers as well as Jewish and that did not prevent their circumcision previously. Third, there is nothing more in the nature of a Gentile being a believer that would preclude the possible necessity of his being circumcised than would prevent the necessity of his being baptized.

Finally, we should note that the traditional interpretation affords a reasonable explanation of James’ conclusion. He recognized that Israel (the church) was now becoming really international and that such changes were appropriate “in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord” (verse 17, NASB). Even the less patriarchal character of the new dispensation had a bearing. (Source: John Gerstner, “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism” [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991], p. 196)

########################

Q. 5. “Does not Romans 9:3-5 teach that there is a distinct people group, distinct from the church, known as the kinsmen according to the flesh (aka, national ethnic Jews) to whom the text says ‘promises’ were made? (Obviously we as Premillennialists see those ‘promises’ spoken of in the text as referring to realities that will find their fulfillment in a literal future Millennium. But how else could verses 3-5 be interpreted in any other way than that there is a distinct ‘people of God’ in the nation of Israel alongside the church?)”

Galatians 3:16 says the promises were made to Christ. That point is central. Then in Galatians 3:29 it says that if we are Christ’s then we are Abraham’s seed. So the promises are to the one seed of Abraham, and that is Christ and those in Christ. Also in the old dispensation the promises were only to those in Christ. In Romans 9, a little farther down in verse 8, it says that the promise was made only to the elect in Christ, who in that verse are called “the children of the promise.” They were the real Israelites. The others were “of Israel,” but they were not really “Israel” (Rom. 9:6).

Also, Romans 11:5 says that there continues to be a remnant of Israelites who are elect in Christ. But the elect Israelites whom God gathers are not a separate people “alongside the church.” Rather, they are part of the church. The catholic church consists of all the elect in Christ who are gathered “out of the whole human race” “from the beginning to the end of the world” (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 21). (Rev. James A. Laning, 18/02/2019)

########################

Q. 6. “In Romans 11:25-26 it says that ‘blindness in part is happened to Israel … until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.’ When the next verse says, ‘And so all Israel shall be saved,’ does not the following part imply that there shall be a restoration of the Jews as the people of God at the Second Coming of Christ? For it says, ‘There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer … and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob’?”

While many Reformed exegetes view this passage as [speaking of a future conversion of the Jews], not all do. Among the Calvinists who do not is John Calvin. In his commentary, he saw ‘all Israel’ as all the elect—the total number of the elect of all ages … Others, especially Dutch Reformed theologians, are more restrictive and interpret ‘all Israel’ as the total number of elect Jews [e.g. William Hendriksen].  Still others, more restrictive, limit the expression to the elect remnant of Jews.

Hendriksen, admiring of Calvin and sympathetic with his fellow Dutch Calvinists, wrestles with the exegesis before coming gradually to the national Israel interpretation. Observing that all uses of ‘Israel’ from Romans 9 to 11:26a indisputably refer to Jews distinguished from Gentiles, and the verses which follow likewise, he concludes that Israel in this verse ‘in all probability does not indicate the church universal. It has reference to Jews, not to Gentiles’ (“Israel in Prophecy,” 1972). He then asks whether the reference is to the Jews as a whole or to the ‘entire Jewish remnant.’ Based on Romans 11:5, 14 and 31, Hendriksen argues that it is evident that ‘the salvation of “all Israel” was being progressively realized until “all Israel” shall have been saved. When the full number of the elect Gentiles will have been gathered in, then the full number of elect Jews will also have been gathered in.’ (Ibid., p. 43). Thus, ‘all Israel’ refers to the elect remnant. (Source: John Gerstner, “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism” [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991], pp. 197-198)

[The] recognition of a continuing divine purpose for ethnic Jews does not at all imply the eternal distinction between Israel and the church that dispensationalists imagine. The metaphor of the olive tree which immediately precedes the verse in question illustrates the truth well. While most ethnic Jews had been cut off from the olive tree (Israel) because of unbelief (verses 22-23), they could be grafted back in (verse 24) and so form (with believing Gentiles) the Israel of God. (Source: John Gerstner, “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism” [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991], p. 198)

########################

Q. 7. “In Romans 15:8-9, Paul writes: ‘Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.’ Does not this teach two peoples of God?”

Notice what verses 8 and 9 say: “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” and he was a minister of the mercy of God “that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.”

Some take the words Christ was a minister of the circumcision in the figurative sense. They understand the text to teach that Christ became a minister of the Jews for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. But it is a mistake to explain circumcision as meaning the Jews. By circumcision, the apostle refers to the entire Old Testament dispensation. The circumcision is representative of the entire old dispensation. That Christ became a minister of the circumcision means that he came under the law of the old dispensation. He bore the curse of the law. He redeemed them of the old dispensation who were under the curse of that law and received them. At the same time he made an end of the law. And he threw the door open to the Gentiles.

In all of this, Christ revealed the excellency of God. He revealed especially two things. First, he revealed the mercy of God. Second, he revealed the truth of God. Christ became a minister of the circumcision with a view to the truth of God. He became a minister of the mercy of God that the Gentiles might be the objects of that mercy. He became a minister on behalf of the truth of God in order that the promises might be fulfilled. And he became a minister on behalf of the mercy of God in order that the Gentiles might be the objects of mercy. This is fitting. The circumcision always glorified God on behalf of his truth and faithfulness, and the Gentiles always glorify God on behalf of his mercy.

Our glorifying of God is Christ’s purpose in redeeming us. It is also his purpose in receiving us. Christ did both. He redeemed us when he came under the law and entered into the suffering of death. Christ also received us. He received us when God gave us to Christ in his counsel. When Christ received us, we were nothing to be proud of, but Christ received us, and receives us in time, when the Father draws us to Christ. We never come to Christ of ourselves. God draws us to him. And Christ receives us: “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” [John 6:37]. Christ receives sinful men. It makes no difference how sinful you are; Christ will receive you. When he does receive us, he makes a glorious church of us by his grace. He sanctifies us, makes us righteous, and makes us holy. (Herman Hoeksema, “Righteous by Faith Alone: A Devotional Commentary on the Book of Romans”—RFPA)

########################

Q. 8. “In I Corinthians 10:32, it says: “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” This text teaches us that the church of the living God is listed in contrast to unbelieving Jews and unbelieving Gentiles. Therefore in the present age humanity is divided into 3 distinct groups of humanity: Jews.

Stay tuned …

########################

Q. 9. “Evidence for the distinction between Israel and the church, proving they are not the one same people, is found in Galatians 6:16 (“And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God”). It appears logical to view ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16) as believing Jews in contrast to unbelieving Jews called ‘Israel after the flesh’ (1 Cor. 10:18).”

[The] premillennialists appeal to this text to support a claim that distinguishes between the nation of Israel as God’s covenantal people and the Gentiles as the church. Their claim is that the expression “the Israel of God” refers to the Jews in the Galatian churches and pronounces the blessing of mercy upon them. Peace, therefore, belongs to the Gentiles in Galatia.

This interpretation must be rejected, because no writer in sacred Scripture, in pronouncing blessings on the church, makes a distinction between Jew and Gentile. More importantly, if the interpretation of the premillennialists is true, Paul would be contradicting everything he has insisted upon in the epistle: the true seed of Abraham are those who believe in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

The text has exactly the opposite meaning. It clearly establishes the truth that the true Israel of God consists of both Jews and Gentiles. The text must be interpreted to mean that as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be on them, that is, upon the Israel of God. The true Israel of God is composed of the entire church, both Jews and Gentiles. (Herman C. Hanko, “Justified Unto Liberty: Commentary on Galatians”—RFPA)

########################

Q. 10. “The overall teaching of Ephesians 2:15-16 is that Christ, by His blood shed upon the cross, has abolished the Old Covenant which separated Jew and Gentile and now is creating in Himself ‘one new man’ comprised of all who believe.”

“In Ephesians 2:15-16 as the one ‘new man’ and ‘one body’ that’s distinct from the commonwealth of Israel in that chapter. While obviously saints in all dispensations are part of the household of God. And we have to remember that the commonwealth of Israel is not equated with the household of God”

“That the church is not Israel, but rather distinct from Israel is proved by the unique relationship of Jews and the Gentiles called “one new man” in Ephesians 2:15. During the current church-age, God is saving a remnant from the two previous entities (Israel and Gentiles) and combining them into a third “new” object—the church. This unity of Jews and Gentiles into one “new man” covers only the church-age, from Pentecost until the rapture, after which time God will restore Israel and complete her destiny (Acts 15:14-18).”

Stay tuned …

########################

Q. 11. “Ephesians 1:19-23 proves there was no church before Pentecost. God gave Christ to be the ‘Head over all things to the church which is His body’ after the ascension …

… Certain events in the ministry of the Messiah were essential to the establishment of the church—the church does not come into being until certain events have taken place. These events include the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to become head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). The church, with believers as the ‘body’ and Christ as the ‘head,’ did not exist until after Christ ascended to become its head.”

This is no reasoning. One may as well argue that no sins were remitted until after Christ made atonement on the cross. Or that none were regenerated until after Christ was made a “life-giving Spirit” at His resurrection. It would be just as valid an argument to say that Christ could not make intercession for His people until after He sat down at God’s right hand. But this is refuted by Zechariah 1:12-13 (3:1-2)! Christ was Mediator “set up (anointed) **from everlasting**, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." (Prov. 8:23). We must be able to see Christ as the preincarnate Head of His people **from the beginning**, because "the Lamb [was] slain from the foundation of the world," as well as being the incarnate Head in history after His birth, death, resurrection and ascension. Otherwise we cannot "rightly divide the Word of truth," much less "cut a straight line through the truth.” (Robert C. Harbach, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 43, no. 14 [Jan. 4, 1967])

########################

Q. 12. “In Ephesians 2:20 (‘And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone’) do not the words, ‘And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ prove that the church was not built on the foundation of OT prophets, but rather that both the prophets AND apostles were required to build the foundation? This is key. Both were required to build the foundation, which is why the church is new—a new entity distinct from the people of God of the OT—for it required the apostles.”

The church is one in all ages as proved by dozens of arguments. The NEWNESS of the church in the NT (mostly Gentiles, catholic, different office-bearers, full revelation, two NT sacraments, etc.) requires a “new” foundation; the NT Scriptures are the foundation of the NT church as to its new form.

########################

Q. 13. “In Ephesians 3:1-6 Paul calls this act of God ‘a mystery which was not made known in other generations but is now revealed.’”

Against this “mystery” doctrine of the dispensationalists, I submit a number of considerations. First, just as we saw in our examination of dispensational “literalism,” here too the dispensationalist confuses fullness of prophecy with the substance of prophecy. It is one thing to say that all the details of the church were not revealed to Old Testament believers but quite another to say that the church was not in view at all.

Second, we have already noted that many Old Testament prophecies to Israel are applied to the church by the New Testament (Joel 2:28-32) and that the fact that Gentiles were to be included in the worship of God was revealed in the Old Testament (Amos 9:12). While the details of this “mystery” were undoubtedly the cause of great perplexity, this “mystery” was not a complete unknown.

Finally, the meaning of the word *mystery*, both within the Bible and in popular usage, is against the dispensational interpretation. In common usage mystery means something *partly* unknown. For example. The church speaks of the “mysteries of the faith” as articles of belief which she now sees through a glass darkly. More importantly, the Bible also uses the word in this sense. O. T. Allis wrote:

“The word ‘mystery’ occurs 29 times in the New Testament, most of which are in Paul’s epistles, six being in Ephesians. It is important, therefore, to observe how the word is used, especially by Paul. Paul speaks of several mysteries; ‘the mystery of God and of the Father and of Christ’ (Col.ii 2), ‘of Christ’ (Col.iv 3), ‘of the gospel’ (Eph.vi 19), ‘of his will’ (Eph. i 9), ‘of the faith’ (I Tim.iii 9), ‘of godliness’ (I Tim.iii 16), ‘of iniquity’ (2 Thess.ii 7). These passages show that to describe a person as a mystery, does not necessarily imply that he or it was entirely unknown. It might be known yet still be a mystery because not fully known: God was known in Israel—that was Israel’s pre-eminence … yet Paul speaks of the ‘mystery of God.’ Christ was God ‘manifested in the flesh.’ He had been on earth and the facts of His earthly life were known. Yet Paul speaks of the ‘mystery of Christ.’ Especially noteworthy is I Tim.iii 16 where Paul speaks of the ‘mystery of godliness’; and then refers to events in the earthly life of Christ which were known too and had been witnessed by Christians who were in Christ before him” (Allis, “Prophecy and the Church,” p. 90. See pages 90-102 for a full discussion).

Thus, it cannot be said that the dispensational doctrine of the church as a parenthesis or “mystery” which was wholly unknown to the Old Testament can stand close scrutiny. None of the passages traditionally cited by dispensationalists support the notion. Rather, the dispensational exegesis of these passages is controlled by an ‘a priori’ commitment to a radical theological distinction between Israel and the church—a theological distinction without exegetical support from Scripture.

(Source: John Gerstner, “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism” [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991], pp. 198-200)

########################

Q. 14. “Certain events in history were essential to the establishment of the church—the church does not come into being is not yet established until certain events have taken place. An example of this is that the church could not become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts—see Ephesians 4:7-11.”

Stay tuned …

########################

Q. 15. “Hebrews 11:6 is used by Reformed theologians to refute the notion that the fulfilment of the ‘land promise’ in Genesis 17 refers to an earthly land/country being given to Abraham and his seed—‘But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly …’.  But why doesn’t ‘heavenly country’ mean it cannot be on a physical earth also that has simply been renewed by fire? The new heaven and earth is simply renewed not brand new.”

Stay tuned …

########################

Q. 16. “Revelation 19 speaks of the Second Coming of Christ. Chapter 20 with the vision of the 1000 years follows the vision of chapter 19. Does that not constitute proof that the millennial reign of Christ follows His Second Coming?—and that therefore both Amillennialism and Postmillennialism are false?”

The underlying assumption of this argument is that the book of Revelation is written in ‘chronological order.’ That would indeed be a valid argument if it can be proved that the book is such.

Herman Hoeksema comments: “At no time does the book [of Revelation] present the chronological order. The element of time is wanting. John merely perceives different scenes, and he relates those scenes as they are held before his vision … [The] order of the Book of Revelation is not chronological but rather ideological. Repeatedly the book follows the development of the world to its very end from a certain point of view in order then to resume the drawing of the same picture from a different viewpoint. Thus, for instance in Chapters 6:12-16; 11:15-19; 14:17-20; 16:17-21; 18; 19:11-21.” (Herman Hoeksema, “Behold He Cometh: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation”—RFPA)

Apostolic vs Historical-Grammatical Method of Interpretation

Q. 17. “In Galatians 3:16 (and other similar passages which interpret OT texts spiritually), the apostle was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he interpreted that way. We are not. There are several examples of New Testament authors ‘seeing’ something in an Old Testament text that we would never have seen using the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation. But this does not give us the authority to interpret other texts in the same way. We are not inspired. So I love preaching those passages, as well as genuine types/antitypes, but I cannot do this where the New Testament does not explicitly give me that authority. By taking that authority on myself to find meanings in Old Testament texts beyond the original context, I’m opening the door to an endless number of private interpretations, and no one can tell me I’m wrong.”

Stay tuned …

The Church: Born at Pentecost?

Q. 18. “The church is called the “Body of Christ” (Col. 1:18), and entrance into the body is said to be through “Spirit baptism” (1 Cor. 12:13)—the key element being that the work of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is what places a person into Christ body, in which Jew and Gentile are united through the church.  Since Acts 1:5 views Spirit-baptism as future, while Acts 11:15, 16 links it to the past, it is evident that the church began on the Day of Pentecost.”

Stay tuned …