Recent Events Revive Temple Question

One of the important results of the six-day war of June, 1967, when Israel conquered Jerusalem, was the revival of the question whether Israel would rebuild a temple on the traditional temple site in Jerusalem. Orthodox Jews for many years have been praying daily for the rebuilding of the temple. In this expectation, they have had the support of premillenarians who interpret Scriptural prophecies as meaning what they say when they refer to a future temple in Jerusalem. The world as a whole, as well as the majority of the church, have tended to ignore this expectation as being too literal an interpretation of prophecy. Often this disinterest was based on the fact that Israel was not in position to accomplish such an objective, and disbelief about rebuilding the temple stemmed from disbelief concerning any future for Israel as a nation.

The majority of the church for the last several generations has followed amillennial interpretation, which either spiritualizes promises concerning the nation Israel and its possession of their land and city or has considered these promises forfeited by unbelief. According to amillenarians, Israel would never return to their ancient land, never restore the kingdom of Israel, and never rebuild the temple.

The stirring events of the twentieth century have caused many of them to rethink this question, for the facts of history have supported the orthodox Jewish hope as well as the expectation of premillennial Christians. Now the fact that Israel has greatly extended the territory under its control and has for the first time in many centuries possessed the ancient city of Jerusalem has renewed the question concerning the rebuilding of the temple.

Rumors are rife that plans are already well advanced for rebuilding such a temple. An article appearing in The Christian and Christianity Today reports news “received from authoritative sources in Sellersburg, Indiana” to the effect that 500 railroad carloads of stone from Bedford, Indiana, are already en route to Israel and that a portion of it has arrived in Israel. Included in the report is the information that the two bronze pillars for the new temple have already been cast.1 Although the Israeli government flatly denies the entire story and the authority for it is vague, the rumor highlights current interest in the question concerning the rebuilding’of the temple. The Limestone Institute of America has been unable to find any confirmation of such an order, and Israel’s ambassador states that if a temple is built native stone would be used.

Two radically different groups in Israel are in favor of building the temple.The one consists of extreme nationalists who regard it as a symbol of Israeli victory and the center of religious culture.The other is the relatively small group of orthodox Jews who are motivated principally by religious concepts. The main body of Jews throughout the world have not committed themselves definitely to the project. It would seem, however, a natural result of the revival of Israel both as a nation and as a religious entity that ultimately such a temple should be built. This is supported by the long history of the temple as the heart of Israel both as a nation and as a religious group.

History of Previous Temples

The first Temple which served the people of Israel was that built by Solomon, the details of which are given in 1 Kings 5:1—6:38 ; 7:13-51 ; 2 Chronicles 2:1—4:22 . The plans for the Temple were revealed by God in detail, and construction included lavish use of precious metals, making it one of the most costly structures in the ancient world. The dedication of the Temple was likewise an elaborate procedure (1 Kings 8:1-66; 2 Chron 5:1—7:11 ). The Temple served as the center of Israel’s religious life for four hundred years, until it was finally destroyed in 586 B.C.

For seventy years the Temple lay desolate. The pilgrims returning under Zerubbabel beginning in 541 B.C. began the process of the restoration of Israel in the land. Soon after arrival they laid the foundation for a new Temple. This early attempt to build the Temple was stopped approximately 535 B.C. Construction was not renewed until 520 B.C. when Darius gave authority for resumption of the building (Ezra 6:1-12). Finally in 516 B.C., the Temple of Zerubbabel was completed with mingled joy and sorrow, joy for the restoration of the Temple, but sorrow because the new Temple fell far short of the grandeur of Solomon’s Temple which had been destroyed.2 According to the dimensions given in Ezra 6:3-4, the new Temple was about one-third larger than Solomon’s Temple, but lacking its magnificence.3 The Talmud mentions five things lacking in Zerubbabel’s Temple that were found in Solomon’s, that is, the ark, the sacred fire, the shekinah glory, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim.4 Instead of the ark a stone was placed in the holy of holies.

This Temple served Israel also for about four hundred years when its rebuilding was undertaken by Herod in 20 B.C., not long before the birth of Christ. Its building progressed during Christ’s lifetime on earth, and was brought to completion in A.D. 64, only a few years before its destruction in A.D. 70. From that day until this, there have been no Jewish sacrifices and no Jewish temple.

The Larger Question of the Form of Jewish Revival

The answer to the question of whether Israel will rebuild their temple is integral to the larger question of whether the Bible teaches Israel’s restoration as a nation. As previously pointed out, amillenarians tend to deny any restoration to Israel at all and claim that the present activity in the Middle East on the part of the nation Israel has no prophetic or religious significance. Albertus Pieters, for instance, writes: “In conclusion, some will ask what we think of Zionism and of the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine…. No doubt God has His plans for this new development, as for the whole course of affairs in the world, but as students of prophecy it is our task to determine what He has revealed concerning such plans; and whether this new state becomes permanent or not, we are still sure that no such thing is to be found in the scriptures.”5

Postmillenarians like Charles Hodge, in answer to the question, “Are the Jews to be restored to their own land?” state: “The idea that the Jews are to be restored to their own land and there constituted a distinct nation in the Christian Church, is inconsistent not only with the distinct assertions of the Scriptures, but also with its plainest and most important doctrines…. The restoration of the Jews to their own land and their continued national individuality, is generally associated with the idea that they are to continue a sort of peerage in the Church of the future, exalted in prerogative and dignity above their fellow believers; and this again is more or less intimately connected with the doctrine that what the Church of the present is to look forward to is the establishment of a kingdom on earth of great worldly splendour and prosperity. For neither of these is there any authority in the didactic portions of the New Testament.”6

In contrast to the amillennial and postmillennial denial of a future restoration of Israel to their ancient land, premillenarians have long taught that Israel will be finally regathered in their ancient land to enjoy the kingdom of Christ on earth for a thousand years.7 This is based on interpreting Scripture in its normal sense in its reference to Israel in the land and to another temple in Jerusalem.

Scriptural Evidence for a Future Temple

The fact that Israel is now in their ancient land organized as a nation, and the impressive recent events which have put the city of Jerusalem itself into the hands of Israel, have to a large extent revealed the premises and conclusions of both the amillenarians and postmillenarians to be in error. To claim that this supports the entire premillennial interpretation may be presumptive, but it certainly gives added force to the normal interpretation of Scripture in predicting such a situation. A number of important Scriptures may be cited in support of the concept of a future rebuilding of the temple.

Matthew 24:1-2, 15. One of the most important prophecies relative to a future temple is found in the Olivet Discourse. In the introduction to Christ’s prophecy concerning the end of the age, He predicted concerning the great Temple being built by Herod: “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” This prophecy was strikingly fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. The Temple indeed was left with not one stone standing upon another. The wailing wall still standing in Jerusalem may have been part of the extreme western outer wall which was not a part of the Temple itself. Later in the seventh century, the Mosque of Omar was built by Caliph Omar supposedly on the precise site of the Temple which presumes its complete destruction.

In Matthew 24:15, however, as an immediate sign of the second advent of Christ, the prediction is made that those living in that generation will “see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand).” This prediction obviously could not refer to A.D. 70 as it is an event immediately preceding the second advent of Christ described, in Matthew 24:27-31. The prediction, however, gives us the clue concerning the future Temple.

The abomination of desolation has reference to a future event paralleling to some extent “the abomination that maketh desolate” of Daniel 11:31 fulfilled in the desolation of the Temple in the second century B.C. by Antiochus Epiphanes which sparked the Maccabean revolt.

The future abomination of desolation is mentioned in Daniel 9:27 where, according to premillennial interpretation, “the prince that shall come” (Dan 9:26) will break his covenant of seven years in the middle and “he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate.” The act of desolation is confirmed in Daniel 12:11 where it is stated: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.” If the usual premillennial interpretation is correct, this act of desecration of the sacrifice will take place approximately three and one-half years before the second advent.

This interpretation obviously presents some difficult problems including the question as to whether orthodox Jews will renew the Mosaic sacrificial system. Judging by Scriptures, this is precisely what they will do as it would be impossible to cause sacrifices to cease if they were not already in operation. The usual method of dismissing this as something which occurred in A.D. 70 does not provide a reasonable explanation of the text nor account for the fact that the second coming of Christ occurs immediately thereafter.8

The question of renewal of sacrifices in this period prior to the second advent should not be confused with another eschatological problem, that of sacrifices in the millennium which are related to prophecies of Ezekiel’s temple (cf. Ezek 40—48 ). The Jews who offer the sacrifices which are forcibly stopped are orthodox Jews, not Christians, and there is no real relationship between the problem of Ezekiel’s temple and the sacrificial system predicted with that of the temple and its desecration described by Christ. The implication is clearly in favor of a temple prior to the second advent which is different in structure and function than Ezekiel’s temple.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4. Additional confirmation of this concept of a temple in the period preceding the second advent is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4. In this passage prediction is made that the future man of sin “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped” assumes the role of deity, “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess 2:4). Using this passage as an interpretation of the prediction of Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15, it may be concluded that following the desecration of the Jewish temple and its sacrifices the future man of sin identified by many as “the prince that shall come” (Dan 9:26) will become an object of worship. A later phase of this is that he is replaced by an idol or image of himself, according to Revelation 13:14-15. The passage does not say precisely, however, that the image is in the temple, but this would be a reasonable location.

Problems of Fulfillment

Problems incident to rebuilding the temple are considered in an illuminating essay by Daniel Fuchs.9 The contemporary difficulties in the way of rebuilding such a temple are tremendous. The Mosque of Omar now occupies the site which many believe was the location of the holy of holies of Solomon’s temple. This magnificient mosque recently completely rebuilt at an expense of many millions of dollars could not be razed without precipitating a major war. This is commonly recognized by most Jews, and only extreme nationalists have dared to suggest that the Temple should be built upon this site. When Col. Chlomo Goren held a religious service in the present mosque area in August, 1967, he was almost universally condemned by the Israeli press.10 Orthodox Jews considered this area off limits as desecrated by Gentiles and fear lest they should walk upon the holy ground unwittingly.

In addition to political problems, real difficulties face any attempt to restore a Mosaic system of sacrifices in a temple. In addition to the Scriptures themselves, the Jewish Mishna contains many laws and specifications which orthodox Jews would consider necessary. Orthodox Jews tend to believe that the temple will not be built until the Messiah returns and hence oppose a temple being rebuilt now. Such a temple would also involve animal sacrifices to which the majority of Israel are now opposed.

In attempting to solve these problems, one is reminded of all the insuperable difficulties which lay in the way of Israel’s return to their ancient land. History has recorded that Israel did return in spite of the difficulties. It is safe to conclude that future history will also record a rebuilding of the temple. Such a rebuilding could take place before the rapture of the church but not necessarly. The temple could be built anytime in the period after the rapture but prior to the desecration of the temple, which will occur three and one-half years before the second coming of Christ to the earth.

Summary of Predictions

On the basis of Matthew 24:15 with supporting Scriptures from Daniel, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 13, it may be concluded that Scriptures anticipate a future temple with a sacrificial system which will be under way at the time “the prince that shall come” exercises his authority, desecrates the temple, and establishes himself as the object of worship.

If such a temple is to be built, it is reasonable to assume that it will be built in Jerusalem as no other site would be acceptable for a temple built in fulfillment of the Mosaic system. One of the remarkable features of the recent history of Israel is that the stage is set precisely for such a move, and if so, the end of the age may be very near.

---

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

---

¹ The Christian and Christianity Today, August 4, 1967, pp. 7-8.

² Cf. the picture and description of Solomon’s Temple with meager details given of the new Temple in article on “Temple,” The International Bible Encyclopaedia, V, 2930-34.

³ Cf. article, “Temple,” Unger’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 1079-80.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Albertus Pieters, The Seed of Abraham, p. 148.

⁶ Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, 810-11.

⁷ Cf. John F. Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, pp. 159-220, 256-334.

⁸ For further discussion, cf. John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord, pp. 58-79.

⁹ Cf. The Chosen People, December, 1967, pp. 1-5.

¹⁰ Cf. Fuch’s discussion, ibid., pp. 2-3.

[John F. Walvoord, President, Dallas Theological Seminary, Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra.]

Higher criticism during the last century has been marked by an unrelenting attack on any form of literal eschatology. The concept that the Bible can actually prophesy future events in detail with accuracy is abhorrent to the liberal mind. Every effort accordingly is made to date prophetic utterances after the event prophesied as illustrated in the dating of Daniel in the second century B.C. The premise is that detailed prophecy of the future is impossible for either God or man. Although it is often couched in terms of objective scholarship, it is obvious that such a premise is extremely subjective and prejudicial to any calm evaluation of the data. It is built on a thesis that God is not sovereign, is not omniscient, and is not omnipotent. Further, it involves a theory of revelation which renders impossible communication of details to man beyond his natural wisdom. Such higher criticism spares no fundamental of orthodoxy and is free to revise its theology as well as the statements of Scripture to harmonize with the thesis involved. The concept of realized theology must be understood as an outgrowth of this approach to prophecy.

The place of eschatology in liberal theology has undergone in the last generation a dramatic change. The extreme skepticism expressed by Harnack1 which regarded eschatology in Scripture contemptuously has been replaced by a new study of the eschatological aspects of Scripture largely due to the influence of Albert Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus.

This trend toward eschatology has been analyzed by Suggs as follows: “…during the years since World War I there has been a growing appreciation of the breadth, depth, and complexity of eschatological thought in the Bible. We have come a long way since Harnack spoke of eschatology as the ‘husk’ rather than the ‘kernel’ of Jesus’ teaching, with the result that Christianity became the delineation of an ideal ethic rather than the proclamation of judgment and salvation.”2

Suggs goes on to explain the role of Schweitzer in this renewed analysis of eschatology: “We work now with a more positive appraisal of the centrality of eschatology to the early preaching…. The literary roots of this revival actually extend beyond the turn of the century to the work of J. Weiss on the kingdom of God in the gospels. But it was Albert Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus (German edition, 1906), which issued an inescapable challenge to the nineteenth century understanding of the New Testament message by setting the eschatological concern at the very center of Jesus’ teaching. From that day, the problem of biblical eschatology became a major interest of historical study,…”3

Schweitzer, however, had ended up with the conclusion that Jesus’ eschatological hope was not fulfilled, suggesting that Jesus was mistaken. As Suggs expresses it: “Schweitzer’s own answer to that question [of the relevancy of the eschatological proclamation] was a simple religious commitment inspired by his mistaken hero [Jesus] and the development of a philosophy of reverence for life which has only tenuous connections with the historical faith.”4

Even liberal scholarship, however, has not followed Schweitzer, although they are probably in agreement that Jesus was mistaken. To leave Christian faith in such an impasse is not satisfactory even to a liberal. It is in this context that another point of view, that of realized eschatology, was advanced by C. H. Dodd in the aftermath of World War I, aided somewhat by Rudolf Otto. A third point of view relative to eschatology is that of a mediating school attempting to harmonize Schweitzer and Dodd.

C. K. Barrett observes that in relation to “the eschatological material in the gospels” there are “no more than three fairly well defined groups.”5 Barret finds that the first group headed by Schweitzer are those who held that “the thought and activity of Jesus were alike radically eschatological, determined by the prospect of an imminent coming of the kingdom of God which would be heralded by the woes of the elect. It was to secure the coming of the Age to Come that Jesus died. It follows that Jesus was mistaken, since He died and the kingdom did not come.”6

The second group is represented, according to Barrett, by von Dobschutz, R. Otto, C. H. Dodd, and others, who offered the viewpoint of realized eschatology.7

A third view is a mediating position between Schweitzer .and Dodd which is neither futurist eschatology after Schweitzer nor realized eschatology after Dodd.8

The discussion concerning eschatology, however, has to be seen in the larger context of the rise of neoorthodoxy which tended to limit the effect of Dodd’s influence on liberal theology as a whole. Suggs has summarized this as follows: “The fact that the church at large was not driven to Schweitzer’s position is traceable to a number of factors, only some of which are academic. First, there was the discovery of R. Otto and C. H. Dodd of the element in primitive Christian eschatology which is usually spoken of as ‘realized.’ Secondly, there was the appearance of a new historical skepticism in European scholarship which focused attention on the Christ of faith rather than upon the embarrassingly Jewish Jesus of history. Thirdly, there was the rise of a new theology which formed a more positive place for eschatology because of a negative anthropology which demanded a transcendent rather than an immanent hope.”9

Dodd, however, has unquestionably influenced the attitude of liberal scholarship toward eschatology and an understanding of his position is essential in approaching liberal theological concepts of the twentieth century. Three major areas of Dodd’s contribution need to be examined: (1) Dodd’s concept of eschaton in relation to history and time, (2) the nature and content of the kerygma, and (3) the resulting theological concept related to realized eschatology.

The Concept of Eschaton in Relation to History

Although C. H. Dodd recognizes that Christianity is a faith based upon historical facts, his view of past as well as future history is different than that usually adopted in orthodoxy. Concerning history he writes: “Christianity…is an historical religion. Some religions can be indifferent to historical fact, and move entirely upon a plane of timeless truth. Christianity cannot. It rests upon the affirmation that a series of events happened, in which God revealed Himself in action, for the salvation of men.”10

As far as past history is concerned, however, he feels that history should be considered in its religious sense. Hence, he writes: “This principle of the universality of the divine meaning in history is symbolically expressed in Christian theology by placing the history of the Old and New Testaments within a mythological scheme which includes a real beginning and a real end…. I have described this as mythological, and as such it must, I think, be understood. Creation and Last Judgment are symbolical statements of the truth that all history is teleological, working out one universal divine purpose. The story of Creation is not to be taken as a literal, scientific statement that the time series had a beginning—an idea as inconceivable as its opposite, that time had no beginning. Nor must the story of the Fall, which is the necessary complement of the creation-story, be taken as a literal, historical statement that there was a moment when man first began to set himself against the will of God. The story of creation and the fall is a symbolic summing-up of everything in secular empirical history which is preparatory to the process of redemption and revelation.”11

Dodd’s view of history, therefore, determines his view of eschatology, holding as he does that neither history nor eschatology should be considered literally as a series of events. The Bible fundamentally is a religious document rather than a historical one according to Dodd. Hence, prophecy does not need to be taken any more literally than the doctrine of creation. Dodd thus finds a supra-historical factor in history which is its real significance.12

This leads to his view of eschaton, that history as well as eschatology is realized in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Accordingly, eschatology is now rather than future and hence, “realized.” Dodd equates eschaton with “the day of the Lord” which to him is the summation of all the eschatological purposes. Eschatology is, therefore, already fulfilled in the sense that God’s purpose has been completely realized. Dodd writes: “The real, inward, and eternal meaning, striving for expression in the course of history, is completely expressed in the eschaton, which is therefore organically related to history. Nevertheless, it is unique and unlike any other event, because it is final. It is not as though the Creator had arbitrarily fixed a certain date as the ‘zero hour’ of his world, so that events which might conceivably have followed it are not permitted to happen. It is such that nothing more could happen in history, because the eternal meaning which gives reality to history is now exhausted. To conceive any further event on the plane of history would be like drawing a check on a closed account.”13

In support of his view of eschatology now, in Dodd’s Parables of the Kingdom which introduced the term “realized eschatology” in 1935, Dodd held that the predicted kingdom of God on earth had already arrived. The key to his interpretation was found in two Greek words, ephthasen, translated “is come” in the statement found in Matthew 12:28, “Then the kingdom of God is come unto you,” and eggiken, translated “at hand” in the expression in Mark 1:15, “The kingdom of God is at hand.” Dodd holds that both of these terms indicate absolute arrival instead of nearness as is normally held. The pros and cons of this have been argued by Robert F. Berkey who points out that while the Matthew 12:28 passage could conceivably be construed as the kingdom of God being present, the Mark 1:15 passage implies only nearness.14, ΦΘΑΝΕΙΝ, and Realized Eschatology “ Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXII (June, 1963), 177-87.

Orthodox scholars have tended to regard both concepts as true: that is, that a spiritual kingdom was indeed introduced by Jesus Christ in His first coming, but that a literal kingdom was still a future eschatological event, and hence was near in the sense that the King was present but that the kingdom promises were not fulfilled.

Donald Selby states concerning Dodd: “The fundamental difficulty that appears in the hypothesis of ‘realized eschatology’ lies in Dodd’s failure to distinguish between the anticipated events and the eschaton itself. Is it not possible to understand the high pitch of expectance and hope that were admittedly present during the ministry of Jesus to mean that the guarantee of the eschaton was with them? That is to say, the preliminary events had begun to appear. But there seems to be no warrant for saying that the disciples believed that the ‘event’ itself had yet arrived…. The point is, there must be a distinction made between the eschatological Man and the eschatologieal Event.”15

In order to accomplish his purpose, Dodd tends to emphasize passages which support his position, and spiritualize or ignore passages which contradict it. It is rather obvious that his treatment is subjective and selective and does not provide in any sense a literal fulfillment of either the Old Testament prophecies relating to the kingdom nor of Christ’s statements concerning it as in Matthew 24—25 . Dodd’s point of view, of course, fits an existential age in which the present is emphasized at the expense of history and the future.

The Nature and Content of the Kerygma

Dodd uses the term kerygma as the proclaimed message of the early church. While he does not go as far as Bultmann in distinguishing between the kerygma and the actual message of Christ when He was on earth, he attempts to show that his concept of realized eschatology was the view of the early church. According to Dodd, the early church believed that the kingdom was here and now.

Even liberal scholars have difficulty in following Dodd at this point as the New Testament very clearly predicts future aspects to the kingdom such as in Matthew 24 and the question of the disciples concerning the coming of the kingdom in Acts 1:6. While they recognized a spiritual kingdom on earth as in Romans 14:17, they also expected future fulfillment of such passages as Luke 22:29-30 which prophesied a future kingdom in which the disciples would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. All such passages, however, are dismissed as not worthy of literal interpretation.

Dodd traces a change in the point of view of the writers of Scripture and of the church from the earlier Jewish apocalyptic to his concept of realized eschatology. He writes, “Now Jewish apocalyptic has some very noble elements, but from a psychological point of view it must be described as a form of compensation in fantasy for the sense of futility and defeat. Historically it was bred of the despair of the world which fell on the Jews under acute and prolonged oppression. It is in fact one way of dealing with the problem of evil when it presents itself in an emotionally overwhelming form.”16

Dodd goes on to state: “There is another way of confronting the problem of evil. It is to believe that although there is evil in the world, yet it is God’s world, and the sphere of His Kingdom. His purpose is becoming effective in every part of it, though with varying degrees of intensity. Its inhabitants are all His children, and it is His will to save them all.”17

Dodd further claims that Paul swung around to this position. He states: “In principle, Paul was committed to the second position from his conversion…. He still made personal claims on life for power, satisfaction, and vindication. He still resented humiliation, suffering, and defeat. But in the inward crisis represented by 2 Corinthians he seems finally to have come to terms with life. It is no accident that from this time also we find in his epistles a revised eschatology combined with a generous recognition of the natural goodness of man and of human institutions, a willingness to claim all sides of human life as potentially Christian, and a larger hope for mankind and the whole universe.”18 Dodd’s interpretation of Paul on this point, however, is mostly wishful thinking, and it is interesting that he cites no specific Scriptures in support of his conclusion.

In expounding his point of view concerning realized eschatology, Dodd faces the fact that a number of passages seem to indicate a future kingdom rather than one already realized. He writes: “So we seem to be left with several groups of sayings which on the face of them point in different directions. Sometimes, it seems, they associate the coming of the Son of Man in glory, the kingdom of God, and the Last Judgment, with the historical ministry of Jesus Christ; sometimes they associate it with historical crisis yet to come; and sometimes with that which lies beyond all history, in another world than this. I put it to you that He meant all these, and all at once. Does that sound far-fetched? Let me remind you that poets very often used language with just such a double meaning; one meaning on the surface, another beneath the surface. This doubleness of meaning is not ambiguity or confusion of thought. That is the way poets see life; …The human mind of Jesus Christ was a poet’s mind…. He saw the great Day of the Lord; not only saw it, but acted it out. He saw that Day come, in the brief spell when He worked and suffered in Palestine. He saw it extended into history yet to be. He saw it extended into the world beyond history, where alone the kingdom of God can be perfectly revealed. And yet it was there, really and actually. The Day had come.”19

Dodd goes on to argue that the apostles also had a similar point of view and that his interpretation was the interpretation of the early church. He holds that the concept of “futuristic eschatology” was something that came later as a corruption of the early purity of the truth. When it became apparent that Christ might not immediately come, he states: “The church therefore proceeded to reconstruct on a modified plan the traditional scheme of Jewish eschatology which had been broken up by the declaration that the kingdom of God had already come.”20 Dodd further claims that the source for this revision was the apocalyptic literature of the day. He explains 2 Thessalonians in this way: “The eschatological passage in the first chapter of that epistle (7-10 ), which most critics have noted as being in style unlike that of Paul, is best understood as a virtual quotation of some current apocalypse, whether Jewish or Jewish-Christian. There is nothing distinctly Christian either in its contents or in its general tone, apart from the fact that the figure of Messiah is identified with Jesus.”21

This type of proof, of course, well illustrates Dodd’s method. When Scripture seems to support his case, he will build upon a single word. When whole chapters disagree with him, he finds them unreliable. The subjective nature of such interpretation has been recognized even by liberals who for the most part have not followed Dodd. The New Testament taken as a normal, reliable, and authoritative document does not support his concept of the kerygma as being synonymous with realized eschatology.

Doctrinal Concepts of Realized Eschatology

It is not maligning Dodd to say that he has a low view of inspiration and revelation. Following most of the normal conclusions of higher criticisms he deals with a text subjectively, quoting it when it agrees with him and denying it when it disagrees with his thesis. He rejects as authoritative a number of the Pauline epistles and follows the usual documentary theories of the Gospels.

Dodd has a low view of the person of Christ, specifically denying the hypostatic union. He sees, therefore, no union of God and man in Christ. Dodd states: “The question in Paul’s mind is not a question of the scarcely thinkable combination in one person of the contradictory attributes of transcendent Deity on the one hand and of the purely ‘natural’ and nondivine humanity on the other. Humanity itself means Christ, and has no proper meaning without Him. Unless a man is a ‘son of God,’ he is so far less than man.”22

It is also quite clear that Dodd rejects the normal orthodox interpretation of the atonement, holding that Christ was merely a moral example in His death and in no sense a satisfaction of God’s righteousness. He states: “The Jerusalem kerygma does not assert that Christ died for our sins. The result of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is forgiveness of sins, but this forgiveness is not specifically connected with his death.”23

Dodd denies any kind of penal offering on the part of Christ. He writes: “The interpretation of the saving efficacy of the death of Christ is a task which Christian theology has never yet brought to a completely satisfactory conclusion. Already within the New Testament there are pointers to various lines of interpretation. But that in thus dying He showed, not only a martyr’s devotion to a cause, but also a divine charity toward men who had sinned deeply against Him and against God, is a point upon which there is substantial agreement among New Testament writers who otherwise differ considerably in outlook.”24

It may be concluded that in the concept of the person and work of Christ Dodd is seriously divergent from traditional orthodoxy. In his concept of God he follows the liberal tendency to emphasize the love and goodness of God without proper respect to God’s righteousness and holiness, and does this to the extent of rejecting Scripture which seems to teach contrary to his point of view.

In his overall treatment of Scripture, Dodd is hopelessly subjective. He belabors a point literally if it supports his case; rejects it as nonliteral or in error if it contradicts his point of view. His selection of Scripture proof texts is obviously motivated by the desire to make a case for his theology, but in the process he ignores many Scriptures which contradict it. Nowhere is Dodd’s theology more bankrupt than in his concept of the future. While he recognizes that there has to be an ultimate end of human history and some sort of a final last judgment, he finds no content in Scripture to help him, and he refers to the last judgment as “a terrifying prospect.”25

Strange to say, both liberals and conservatives have tended to reject Dodd’s teachings on the same broad principle, namely, that while there are obviously some present forms of the kingdom of God operating spiritually in the world, these do not exhaust the prophecies that relate to future consummation.

Roderic Dunkerley in his essay on “Unrealized Eschatology,” strongly opposes C. H. Dodd’s realized eschatology. After stating the extent to which Jesus did not achieve His mission, he writes: “In view of all this, must we not say that the term ‘realized eschatology,’ of which we have heard so much in recent years, is a most unfortunate misnomer?” It is, of course, obvious that the kingdom was in a sense present wherever Jesus spoke and acted in the name and power of God—to that extent ‘the kingdom of God has come’ is a statement that may be allowed. The long-hoped-for advent of the Messiah had taken place. But the hopes and promises and expectations associated with his coming did not take place—the eschatology which included them was not realized. ‘Something more than this was promised, something more has kept the advent hope living in the hearts of men.’ I suggest that the time has come when we should speak rather of ‘unrealized eschatology.’“26 In the last analysis, eschatology has not been fully realized and awaits a literal coming of Christ and a future kingdom.

* * *

A. H. Dewey Duncan in his office as Secretary of the President since 1933 has also served as manuscript editor for many years. From the beginning of publication of Bibliotheca Sacra by Dallas Theological Seminary in 1934, he edited the early contributions of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer and others, and in recent years has been the manuscript editor of the entire publication. His retirement on September 30 brings to a close a long and faithful service both to the Seminary and to Bibliotheca Sacra.

---

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

---

¹ Adolf Harnack, What Is Christianity?

² M. Jack Suggs, “Biblical Eschatology and the Message of the Church,” Encounter, XXIV (Winter, 1963) 4-5, cf. Adolf Harnack, What Is Christianity? p. 55.

³ Suggs, ibid., p. 5.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ C. K. Barrett, “New Testament Eschatology,” Scottish Journal of Theology (June, 1953), 151-52.

⁶ Ibid., p. 153.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid., pp. 153-55.

⁹ Suggs, op. cit., p. 5.

¹⁰ C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel, p. 15.

¹¹ Ibid., pp. 168-69.

¹² Ibid., p. 170.

¹³ Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, p. 144.

¹⁴ Robert F. Berkey, “ΕΓΓΙΖΕΙΝ

¹⁵ Donald Joseph Selby, “Changing Ideas in New Testament Eschatology,” Harvard Theological Review, L (Jan., 1957), 23.

¹⁶ C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies, p. 126.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 127.

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 127-28.

¹⁹ Dodd, The Coming of Christ, pp. 20-21.

²⁰ Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, p. 55.

²¹ Ibid., p. 56.

²² Dodd, The Meaning of Paul for Today, p. 89.

²³ Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, p. 32.

²⁴ Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, p. 84.

²⁵ Ibid., p. 121.

²⁶ Roderic Dunkerley, “Unrealized Eschatology,” The London Quarterly and Holborn Review, CLXXXVI (July, 1961), 54.

[John F. Walvoord, Chancellor, Dallas Theological Seminary]

[Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in Bibliotheca Sacra in October 1973. It is reprinted now, with minor editorial changes, because of continuing discussions on this theological issue.]

One of the important ministries of the Holy Spirit to believers today is His bestowal of spiritual gifts on Christians at the time of their conversion. While Christians may have natural abilities even before they are saved, spiritual gifts seem to be related to the special purpose of God in calling them and saving them; and, in the language of Ephesians 2:10, they are “created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Spiritual gifts are divinely given capacities to perform useful functions for God, especially in the area of spiritual service. Just as the human body has members with different capacities, so individual Christians forming the church as the body of Christ have different capacities. These help them contribute to the welfare of the church as a whole, as well as to bear an effective witness to the world. Spiritual gifts are bestowed by the sovereign choice of God and need to be exercised in the power and under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Every Christian has at least some spiritual gifts, as according to 1 Corinthians 12:7, “To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” After enumerating a partial list of such gifts, the apostle concluded in 1 Corinthians 12:11, “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” The analogy of the human body is then developed as an illustration of the various functions of the members of the body of Christ. the lost to Christ. While every Christian should be a channel of information to others and should do the work of an evangelist as Timothy was instructed to do (2 Tim 4:5), nonetheless some will be more effective in sharing the gospel than others.

The gift of being a pastor or shepherd of the flock also calls for special abilities. In Ephesians 4:11 pastors and teachers are linked, indicating that a true shepherd will also be able to teach or feed his flock, and that a true teacher should have some pastoral abilities. While these qualities may be found in various degrees in different individuals, the link between teaching and shepherding the flock is inevitable for one who wants to be effective in preaching the Word of God.

The gift of exhortation mentioned in Romans 12:8 has the thought of presenting the truth in such a way as to stir to action. Sometimes those who have a gift of exhortation are not necessarily good Bible teachers and vice versa; men with varied gifts are all essential to the work of the church.

Other gifts mentioned in the Bible include the gift of giving, having special grace to share one’s earthly possessions as mentioned in Romans 12:8. The gift of showing mercy relates to the special ability to show empathy and sympathy for those in need. The gift of faith, or that of special trust in the Lord, is included in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. All these gifts abide throughout the entire church age and constitute the divinely appointed enablement for the church to fulfill its task.

Spiritual Gifts Which Are Temporary

The question of whether certain spiritual gifts are temporary is one of the debated areas of truth relating to the Holy Spirit in the contemporary church. While most of the church will agree that certain spiritual gifts were discontinued after the apostolic age, others are insisting that gifts given at the beginning of the church age continue in the same way throughout the entire period.

On the surface it is quite clear that the modern church does not function quite like the apostolic church. There is an evident decline in miracles, though God is still able to perform miracles. No longer does the testimony of the church depend on its capacity to support its oral testimony by phenomenal miraculous works. It is also clear from the history of the Bible that miracles were evident for particular purposes in some periods while almost absent in others. Three notable periods of miracles are evident in the Bible: (a) the period of Moses, (b) the period of Elijah and Elisha, and (c) the period of Christ and the apostles. In each of these periods there was a need to authenticate the message that God gave His prophets and/or apostles, but once this need was met the miracles seemed to recede.

The problems relating to the question of whether some gifts are temporary have focused principally on the gift of tongues, the gift of interpreting tongues, and the gift of miracles or healing. Relatively little controversy has been aroused concerning whether or not certain other spiritual gifts were only temporary.

The Gift of Apostleship

It seems evident from the Scriptures that the gift of apostleship was limited to the first-century church. Apostles were distinguished from prophets and teachers in 1 Corinthians 12:28. During the apostolic period they had unusual authority and were the channels of divine revelation. Often they had the gift of prophecy as well as that of working miracles. Generally speaking, those who were in the inner circle of the apostles were eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Christ or, like Paul, had seen Christ subsequent to His resurrection. In Protestantism comparatively few claims have been advanced that any persons exist today with the same apostolic gift found in the early church.

The Gift of Prophecy

The gift of prophecy, though claimed by a few, has also been recognized as having only passing validity. In the early church before the New Testament was completed, authoritative revelation was needed from God not only concerning the present, with the prophet being a forthteller but also concerning the future, with the prophet serving as a foreteller. The Scriptures themselves contain illustrations of such prophetic offices and their exercise. The gift is mentioned in Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:10; and 14:1-40 . A number of illustrations are found as in the case of Agabus who predicted a famine (Acts 11:27-28), and who warned Paul of coming sufferings (21:10-11 ). Among the prophets and teachers at Antioch, according to Acts 13:1, were Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Paul. Women could also be prophets, as illustrated by the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). Paul clearly had the prophetic gift (16:6-10 ; 18:9-10 ; 22:17-21 ; 27:23-24 ). Among the others who were evidently prophets were Judas and Silas (15:32 ). All these individuals were used as authoritative channels through which God could give divine revelation, sometimes about the contemporary situation and sometimes about the future.

New Testament prophets were like prophets in the Old Testament who spoke for God, warned of judgment, and delivered a message from God, whether contemporary or predictive. The Old Testament prophet, however, was more of a national leader, reformer, and patriot, and his message usually was to Israel alone. In the New Testament the prophet principally ministered to the church and did not have national characteristics.

To be a prophet an individual had to have a message from God in the form of special revelation, had to have guidance regarding its declaration so that it would be given forth accurately, and the message itself had to have the authority of God. The prophetic office, therefore, was different from the teaching office in that the teaching office had no more authority than the Scripture on which it was based. The prophetic office, on the other hand, had its authority in the experience of divine reception and communication of truth.

In the early church the prophetic office was very important and was considered one of the principal gifts. It is discussed somewhat at length in 1 Corinthians 14, and given more prominence than other gifts in the list in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. Because no one today has the same authority or the experience of receiving normative truth, it is highly questionable whether anyone has the gift of prophecy today. No one has come forward to add even one verse of normative truth to the Bible. While individuals can have specific guidance and be given insight into the meaning of Scripture, no one is given truth that is not already contained in the Bible itself. Accordingly it may be concluded that the gift of prophecy has ceased.

The Gift of Miracles

The gift of miracles, while a prominent gift in the early church (1 Cor 12:28) and frequently found in the New Testament, does not seem to exist today in the same way it did in Bible times. T’hroughout the earthly ministry of Christ, hundreds of miracles were performed in attestation of His divine power and messianic office. After the ascension of Christ into heaven, miraculous works continued in the early church, on many occasions attending the preaching of the Word and constituting proof that it was indeed from God. With the completion of the New Testament the need for such miraculous evidence in support of the preached Word seems to have ceased and the authority and convicting power of the Spirit seems to have replaced these outer manifestations.

Believing that the gift of miracles is temporary does not demand that there are no miracles today. God still is able to do supernaturally anything He wills to do. It simply implies that in the purpose of God miracles no longer constitute a mainline evidence for the truth, and individuals do not (as in apostolic times) have the gift of miracles. While some who claim to have the gift of miracles today have succeeded in convincing many of their supernatural powers, the actual investigation of their operation, which in some cases may be supported by individual miracles here and there, is often found to be quite deceptive, and often the alleged hearings are psychologically instead of supernaturally effected. The point is not that God cannot perform miracles today, but rather that it is not His purpose to give to individuals the power to perform miracles by the hundreds as was true in the apostolic period.

What is true of the gift of miracles in general seems also to be true of the gift of healing mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:9, 28, 30. In biblical times there were special acts of divine healing, and undoubtedly there were many instances in which the apostles were able to demonstrate the divine power that was within them by restoring health to those who had various physical disabilities.

A survey of the present church, while not without its segment of those who claim divine healing, does not support the contention that it is the same gift as was given in the early church. That God has the power to heal supernaturally today is obvious, and that there may be cases of supernatural healing is not to be denied. Healing as a divine method for communication or authenticating the truth, however, is not the present divine purpose, and those who claim to have the gift of healing have again and again been proved to be spurious in their claims. While Christians should feel free to pray and to seek divine healing from God, it is also true that frequently it is God’s will even for the most godly of people, that, like Paul, they should continue in their afflictions as the means to the end of demonstrating the sufficiency of God. Cases of healing are relatively rare in the modern church and are not intended to be a means of encouraging evangelism or church growth.

The Gift of Speaking in Tongues

Probably the most controversial of the gifts of the Spirit is the gift of tongues. On the day of Pentecost Jews who had come to Jerusalem for the feast were amazed to hear the apostles speak in their languages, and they asked the question, “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and vistors from Rome, both Jews and Proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:8-11). This was clearly a supernatural work of God and a testimony to the authority and truth of the apostles’ message concerning Jesus Christ.

Two other instances occurred in Acts—one in Acts 10-11 on the occasion of Peter speaking to the house of Cornelius, and the other in Acts 19. In Acts 11 Peter, analyzing their speaking in tongues, said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). When Paul encountered certain disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus, as he “laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying” (Acts 19:6). It would seem reasonable to conclude that in these three instances in Acts there was a supernatural manifestation of the Spirit in the form of empowering men to speak in languages that were not known to them. It should also be observed, however, that these are the only three instances mentioned in the Book of Acts, and that apart from the discussion in 1 Corinthians 12-14 there is no other reference to speaking in tongues in the New Testament. What is the explanation of this gift, and can it be exercised today?

Though some writers have distinguished between the instances in Acts, which were clearly known languages, and the experience of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 12-14 , there does not seem to be adequate basis for this distinction. The same expressions are used in both places. The term “unknown tongue” (1 Cor 14:2. KJV) is inaccurate, since the word “unknown” is not in the original. There is no evidence that those who exercised the gift of tongues spoke languages that were unknown to men, though there is reference to the theoretical possibility of speaking in the tongues of angels (1 Cor 13:1). The instance in Acts 2 was clearly in known languages. The recognition of a known language is essential to any scientific confirmation that genuine speaking in tongues has taken place. If those speaking in tongues had only babbled incoherent sounds, this would lend itself to fraudulent interpretation which could not in any way be confirmed. Therefore it is assumed that speaking in tongues in the Bible was a genuine gift, that it involved speaking in existing languages unknown to the speaker, and that actual communication took place in such experiences. So genuine speaking in tongues in the New Testament cannot be explained as simply hypnosis or psychological emotionalism; it has to be recognized as a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit.

The purpose of speaking in tongues is clearly defined in the Scriptures. It was to be a sign to attest to the gospel, a proof to the unsaved of the genuineness of the Holy Spirit’s work (1 Cor 14:22). Though words were expressed and the glory of God was revealed, there is no instance in Scripture where a doctrine was revealed through speaking in tongues, and it does not seem to have been a major vehicle for the revelation of new truth. Interestingly Jews on the day of Pentecost were converted to Christ not after they heard tongues-speaking (Acts 2:5-12) but after Peter preached the gospel (2:14-41 ).

In all three instances in Acts speaking in tongues served to prove that what was taking place was a genuine work of God. In Acts 2, of course, it was the gift of the Spirit and the beginning of the New Testament church. In Acts 10 it was necessary as an evidence to Peter of the genuineness of the work of salvation in the household of Cornelius and was designed to teach Peter that the gospel was universal in its invitation and application. The third instance, in Acts 19, served to identify the 12 men mentioned as actually being converted to Christianity instead of simply being followers of John the Baptist. In these three instances, speaking in tongues was a sign that the work of the Holy Spirit was genuine and that salvation through Christ was available to all whether Jew, Samaritan, or Gentile.

The only passage in the New Testament that deals theologically with the gift of tongues is found in 1 Corinthians 12-14 . In the Corinthian church, plagued with so many doctrinal and spiritual problems, it is rather significant that three chapters of Paul’s epistle to them are devoted to expounding the purpose and meaning of tongues, giving more attention to this problem than to any other that existed in the Corinthian church. The chapters were written to correct and regulate speaking in tongues rather than to exhort the Corinthian believers to exercise this gift. In light of the fact that none of the other epistles or New Testament books apart from the Book of Acts deals at all with this subject, it would seem apparent that speaking in tongues, though it existed in the early church, was not a major factor in the church’s evangelism, spiritual life, or demonstration of the power of God. It seems to have been prominent only in a church that was notoriously unspiritual (cf. 1 Cor 1-11 ).

The gift of tongues is introduced in 1 Corinthians 12 as one of many gifts, and, significantly, as the least of the gifts enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12:28. It is number eight in the list, and immediately afterward the apostle made it plain that spiritual gifts were not possessed by all the Corinthian church, and that only a few would actually speak in tongues. All of chapter 13 is devoted to motivation in speaking in tongues, with Paul pointing out that the only proper motivation is love. So they were not to exalt the gift and they were not to use it as a basis for spiritual pride. Speaking in tongues without love was an empty and ineffectual exercise.

In chapter 14 the discussion of the significance of the gift of tongues is developed in detail. Paul made at least five major points. First, he defined tongues as a gift that is not nearly so important as other gifts such as the gift of teaching or the gift of prophecy. The problem was that speaking in tongues in the Corinthian church could not be understood by anyone there without the gift of interpretation, and it was limited in its capacity to communicate divine revelation. So Paul wrote that it would be better for them to speak five words with understanding than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue (1 Cor 14:19). Clearly Paul exalted the gifts that actually communicate truth rather than the phenomenal gift of tongues that was more a sign gift.

Second, Paul wrote that speaking in tongues should not be exercised in the Corinthian assembly unless an interpreter was present. The principal exercise of speaking in tongues was to be in private, but even here Paul indicated that praying with understanding is better than praying in an unknown tongue (1 Cor 14:15).

Third, the importance of speaking in tongues resides in the fact that it is a sign to unbelievers—a demonstration of the supernatural power of God, not primarily intended for the edification of believers (1 Cor 14:21-22). The Corinthian church, however, was told that unless speaking in tongues was conducted with proper order, it would not achieve its purpose of convincing unbelievers of the truth and it would introduce an element of confusion (1 Cor 14:23). In the public assembly the exercise of the gift of prophecy, the communication of a revelation from God in a known language, was more important and more effectual in leading others to faith than exercising the gift of tongues (1 Cor 14:24-25).

Fourth, the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues as well as exercising the gift of prophecy should be regulated and should not be allowed to dominate the assembly. The principle is that these gifts should be exercised only if the church is edified. Ordinarily only two or three in any given meeting were to be allowed to speak in tongues, and none at all should be permitted if an interpreter was not present (1 Cor 14:27-28). A blanket prohibition was laid down against women speaking either as a prophet or in tongues in the church assembly (1 Cor 14:34-35). The general rule was that all things should be done decently and in order.

Fifth, Paul allowed speaking in tongues to be exercised and not forbidden, but its limitations should be recognized and its exercise should be in keeping with its value. From Paul’s discussion of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, as well as from 1 Corinthians 12-13 , it is evident that speaking in tongues was not intended to be a primary source of revelation or a primary experience of power in the church. It was rather collateral and auxiliary as a proof of the truth of God.

If speaking in tongues was truly exercised, however, in the early church, and if under proper regulation it was beneficial, the question still remains whether a similar experience can be had by the church today. Because it is almost impossible to prove a universal nagative in an experiential matter such as this, especially in light of many who claim to have exercised the gift, a practical line of approach is to first examine the question whether the Scriptures themselves indicate that speaking in tongues was a temporary gift and then, on the basis of the total evidence, to ask what one should do in light of the claims of many that they have a gift of speaking in tongues today.

At least four arguments lead to the conclusion that speaking in tongues was temporary. First, there was no exercise of speaking in tongues before Pentecost. Christ and the apostles and John the Baptist did not exercise the gift of speaking in tongues prior to the day of Pentecost. There is no evidence that such a gift was given in the Old Testament period. So since such a gift was given at Pentecost it also could be withdrawn by God’s sovereign will.

Second, tongues was especially to be a sign to Israel. Isaiah prophesied, “Indeed, He will speak to this people through stammering lips and a foreign tongue” (Isa 28:11). This is quoted in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 as being fulfilled in the exercise of speaking in tongues. Such a sign gift would be fitting and effective at the beginning of a new age, but it would not necessarily be required throughout a long period of time.

Third, though it is debated, it seems evident that other spiritual gifts, such as the gift of apostleship, the gift of prophecy, the gift of miracles, and the gift of healing, were temporary. If these gifts, so effective in establishing the church, were used in the apostolic period but seem to have faded thereafter, it would follow that the gift of tongues might have a similar withdrawal from the church.

Fourth, the statement is made in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that tongues would cease. It can be debated whether this means that the gift of tongues would cease when the New Testament canon was completed or would cease at some future time. The point, however, is that in either case, speaking in tongues is temporary and not a manifestation continued indefinitely in the purpose of God. These evidences seem to point to the conclusion that speaking in tongues is not a gift which can be expected to be exercised throughout the entire church period.

How then can the exercise of speaking in tongues today, as claimed by many individuals, be accounted for? Some sort of a phenomenon that is identified as speaking in tongues is a manifest feature of contemporary Christianity. Three explanations are possible.

First, much of the phenomenon of so-called speaking in tongues today seems by all normal tests to be babbling without known words or language. Such can be explained by psychological means and without supernatural inducement.

Second, claims are made in some cases that speaking in tongues is in definite languages recognizable by those who are familiar with these languages. Though such claims are few and far between and hard to demonstrate, if such claims can be substantiated the question is, How can they be explained? This introduces a second possibility for explaining at least a portion of the tongues phenomena today. Satan is able to counterfeit the gift of tongues, and occasional reports have been given of those claiming to speak in tongues who actually expressed horrible blasphemies against God.

A third possibility in explaining the contemporary claim for speaking in tongues is to recognize that, in some rather remote instances, it is a genuine spiritual gift. Many evangelical Christians do not feel that there has ever been evidence in this century of the exercise of the genuine gift. But if such could be substantiated in a particular case, it still would not justify the great majority of instances of so-called speaking in tongues, which apparently are not at all what the Scriptures refer to as speaking in tongues.

Much of the difficulty in the modern Pentecostal movement is found in the fact that rarely will adherents of tongues-speaking submit their experience to scientific investigation. If a given instance of speaking in tongues were tape-recorded and played separately to several individuals who claim to have the gift of interpretation, and their translations proved to be identical, it would be a scientific demonstration of the genuineness of speaking in tongues such as was true on the day of Pentecost. Unfortunately the Pentecostal movement has not, so far as this author knows, been willing to submit their speaking in tongues to such a scientific test. Until they do, questions will continue to be raised concerning the genuineness of the exercise of the gift of tongues today.

While speaking in tongues was a genuine gift in the early church, it was subject to abuse. In the Corinthian church it was a source of pride on the part of unspiritual people who exercised the gift but who had little of spiritual power or holiness attending its exercise. Unfortunately the same tendencies sometimes are observed today in those who claim to speak in tongues but who make it a source of pride instead of effective testimony for the Lord. It is not true, as often claimed, that speaking in tongues is a proof of either the filling of the Spirit or of spiritual power. There is no basis for pride in the exercise of such a gift.

Four areas of misunderstanding are commonly associated with the gift of tongues. First, speaking in tongues is not, as is sometimes claimed today, a prominent spiritual gift. It is the least of all spiritual gifts and is the least effective in propagating Christianity.

Second, tongues is not a required sign of salvation, and by its very nature as a gift it was given to only a few Christians, not to all of them. The lack of reference outside the books of Acts and 1 Corinthians is substantial proof that it was not an important feature of experiential Christianity in the first century.

Third, speaking in tongues is not in itself a proof of spirituality. The church that seems to have exercised it the most was the least spiritual. The history of the tongues movement seems to have given rise to emotionalism and excesses that have not been beneficial to the propagation of the gospel.

BSac 143:570 (Apr 86) p. 121

Fourth, it is not true that speaking in tongues is an inseparable evidence of the baptism of the Spirit. Since it was a genuine gift in the early church, one who spoke in tongues obviously was also baptized into the body of Christ. Yet every Christian is baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13), but only a few spoke in tongues. So the attempt to make tongues a necessary sign of either spirituality or salvation is an abuse of the doctrine.

The Gift of Interpreting Tongues

If the gift of tongues is suspect today, it also follows that the gift of interpreting tongues today is suspect. The nature of the gift of interpreting tongues makes it difficult to confirm. But if a bona fide case could be found of one who, without knowledge of a foreign language, could interpret such a foreign language while exercising the gift of tongues, and if this in turn could be confirmed by someone who already knew the language naturally, there would be scientific evidence for a supernatural gift. Still the question would remain as to whether this was of God or of Satan. Until proof has been established as to the nature of the interpretation, it is reasonable to question whether the gift can be exercised today.

The Gift of Discerning Spirits

The gift of discerning spirits, while not related to speaking in tongues, is another gift that seems to have been temporary in the church. This was the gift of discerning whether a person supposedly speaking by the Spirit was speaking of God or of Satan. Probably Christians today who are spiritually minded can discern whether one is Spirit-directed or demon-possessed, but this ability does not seem to be bestowed on the church today as a particular gift.

Conclusion

In approaching these controversial matters, Christians should avail themselves of the revelation of Scripture and attempt to find a workable base for solving these problems. The important truth is that there are spiritual gifts bestowed on the church today. The proper use of these gifts in the power of the Spirit is essential to fulfilling the work of God in and through His church. While the temporary gifts are no longer necessary to the testimony of God, the exercise of the permanent gifts is vitally important and is the best demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit.

---

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

[John F. Walvoord is Chancellor and Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

One of the problems in theology today is that many people who refer to dispensationalism do not adequately understand its roots, and therefore they dismiss it without giving it due consideration.

To understand the long background of dispensationalism, I examined approximately one hundred books on systematic theology to seek to determine how they explain dispensationalism. Most of these theologies in the nineteenth century were postmillennial, and most of the ones in the twentieth century were amillennial. They represented almost every system of theology, including liberal and conservative, Calvinistic and Arminian. Relatively few were premillennial. About half of them, regardless of their theological background, recognized biblical dispensations. One of the most significant was that of Charles Hodge, outstanding Calvinistic theologian of the nineteenth century, who was postmillennial in his eschatology but who wrote that the Scriptures describe four dispensations: Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and the Gospel dispensation.1 And Louis Berkhof, an amillenarian, wrote that the Bible has two dispensations.2

Dispensations Related to Progressive Revelation

In the theological works that do discuss dispensations it is evident that acknowledging the presence of dispensations is not limited to a single theological system. Instead, such acknowledgement is based on progressive revelation, the fact that God continued to reveal Himself to humankind through biblical history.

Dispensationalism is an approach to the Bible that recognizes differing moral responsibilities for people, in keeping with how much they knew about God and His ways. God’s revelation of Himself in different eras required moral responses on the part of humanity. In the Garden of Eden the only requirement for conduct was that Adam and Eve were to keep the Garden and not eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. With the entrance of sin, human conscience came in as the guideline for conduct. It proved to be faulty, however, and people continued to sin. Following conscience there was the Flood and with it the introduction of the concept of government and the command that murderers be executed. This, however, also ended in failure at the Tower of Babel. The introduction of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12 and 15 presented a totally new perspective, as God revealed His special plan for Israel in the future. Then those dispensations or stages of progressive revelation were followed by the Mosaic Covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant, the most extensive code of conduct to be found in the Old Testament, was given only to Israel. The nations were not judged by it. None of the nations, for example, were punished for not keeping the Sabbath. Each dispensation superseded the previous one, continuing some of the revelation and conduct requirements of the past and introducing new requirements as well as eliminating some requirements of the previous dispensation. This situation was similar to raising a child who in his early years was subject to a number of limitations but for whom some limitations, as he grew, were lifted while new ones were added.

The New Testament introduces God’s plan and purpose for the church. The numerous requirements of the Mosaic Law do not apply to the present era because the present church age is a different dispensation. For instance, while the Law required executing a man for not keeping the Sabbath, no one would extend that requirement to the present day. In dealing with the legalism present in the Galatian church Paul stated that the Law was like a tutor to bring people to Christ. Just as an adult son no longer needs a tutor, so under grace believers no longer need the Law (Gal. 3:24-25; cf. 4:1-7 on the difference between the rules for children and the rules for adults).

Areas of Confusion in Definition

In the twentieth century many strides forward have been made in interpreting the doctrines of Scripture, especially eschatology and dispensationalism. In this area of theology The Scofield Reference Bible played a major part. Written originally by C. I. Scofield in 1909, he revised it in 1917. After World War I and after Scofield’s death in 1921 The Scofield Reference Bible became an unusually popular study Bible. The Bible conference movement became prominent in this country, and Bible teachers in those conferences often recommended The Scofield Reference Bible. As a result millions of copies were sold, and the views presented in that study Bible became the views of numerous Bible institutes and many evangelicals of the twentieth century.

This situation changed after the 1930s and in the decade that followed. Many seminaries that were formerly orthodox had turned liberal. Then as their graduates were called to churches that were traditionally orthodox, clashes occurred between pastors and their congregations. If a pastor opposed the doctrinal convictions of his congregants, he would have to challenge the doctrine of inspiration, the virgin birth, and similar issues, and this would immediately cause his people to raise questions about his own theology. A number of pastors discovered that most of the people who opposed them were carrying Scofield Reference Bibles, and one of the distinctive factors of the Scofield Bible is that it is dispensational. Therefore those pastors hit on the scheme of attacking dispensationalism as a heresy. Because most people did not have clearly in mind what dispensationalism involved theologically, this tactic helped protect those pastors from questions about their own theology and it put those in the pew on the defensive.

Conservative amillenarians saw an opportunity to further their cause, and they attacked dispensationalism as a departure from the Protestant Reformation. Their motto was “Back to the Reformation” as the cure for apostasy. The Reformation, however, did not deal with the subject of dispensationalism. So these theologians went back to Augustine and his amillennial eschatology.

In the ensuing controversy many liberals attacked dispensationalism. But what they were really attacking was fundamentalism, premillennialism, pretribulationism, and the inerrancy of the Bible. In the process, liberals wrongly identified “dispensationalism” with fundamentalism.

Characteristic of the attacks on dispensationalism is that its opponents say it is heretical.3 Their approach is often characterized by prejudice and ignorance rather than careful study of the Scriptures and of the history of dispensational thought.

One example of this characterization occurred when a woman indicated to me that in a conversation with her pastor she inadvertently mentioned that her nephew was a student at Dallas Seminary. The pastor immediately replied, “That seminary is heretical.” When she asked him why he felt that way, he answered that it was dispensational. Then she asked, “What is wrong with dispensationalism?” He replied, “I don’t know, but it’s bad.”

When amillenarian ministers are asked, “What is wrong with dispensationalism?” many of them cannot give an acceptable answer.

The widespread prejudice and ignorance of the meaning of dispensationalism was illustrated when I was asked by a prominent Christian publication to write an article on dispensational premillennialism. In my manuscript I referred to The Divine Economy, written in 1687, in which the author, Pierre Poiret (1646-1719), discussed seven dispensations.4 The editor omitted this from the manuscript, and when I protested, he said, “That is impossible because John Nelson Darby invented dispensationalism.” It would be difficult to find a statement more ignorant and more prejudicial that that.

Another work on dispensations, written by John Edwards and published in 1699, was titled “A Compleat History or Survey of all the Dispensations and Methods of Religion.”5 Also Isaac Watts (1674-1748) wrote on dispensational distinctives.6

A most important contribution to the discussion of dispensationalism was written by Charles C. Ryrie in 1966. In his book Dispensationalism Today7 he answered many objections to dispensationalism. He presented the subject in such a proper biblical and historical light that for some years afterward the attacks on dispensationalism were muted. After several years, however, those who objected to dispensationalism thought it possible to ignore this work. But in 1995 he issued a revised and expanded work entitled Dispensationalism.8 This work will undoubtedly be unsurpassed by any work on the subject for years to come. Ryrie deals directly with the question of whether dispensationalism is a heresy, and he has a lengthy section on the origin of dispensationalism. He also discusses the hermeneutics of dispensationalism, the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of the church, eschatology, progressive dispensationalism, covenant theology, and ultradispensationalism.

Ryrie says this about the scriptural basis for dispensationalism: “The various forms of the word dispensation appear in the New Testament twenty times. The verb oikonomeō is used once in Luke 16:2 where it is translated ‘to be a steward.’ The noun oikonomos appears ten times (Luke 12:42; 16:1, 3, 8; Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 4:1, 2; Galatians 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10) and is usually translated ‘steward’ or ‘manager’ (but ‘treasure’ in Romans 16:23). The noun oikonomia is used nine times (Luke 16:2, 3, 4; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2, 9; Colossians 1:25; 1 Timothy 1:4). In these instances it is translated ‘stewardship,’ ‘dispensation,’ ‘administration,’ ‘job,’ ‘commission.’ ”9

As Ryrie points out, there are three major dispensations in the Scriptures. “At least three dispensations (as commonly understood in dispensational teaching) are mentioned by Paul. In Ephesians 1:10 he writes of ‘an administration [dispensation, KJV] suitable to the fullness of the times,’ which is a future period here. In Ephesians 3:2, he designates the ‘stewardship [dispensation, KJV] of God’s grace,’ which was the emphasis of the content of his preaching, at that time. In Colossians 1:25-26 it is implied that another dispensation precedes the present one in which the mystery of Christ in the believer is revealed. It is important to notice that … there can be no question that the Bible uses the word dispensation exactly the same way as the dispensationalist does.”10

The fact that the Bible uses the word “dispensation” as a theological term only a few times is no problem. Theologians use the words “atonement” and “Trinity” even though these words do not occur in the New Testament.

Ryrie defines a dispensation as “a stewardship, an administration, oversight, or management of others’ property… . This involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward.”11 Dispensationalism as a system in present-day discussions is most commonly associated with and stems from premillennialism because of the emphasis of premillenarians on normal, literal, grammatical interpretation, which points to a clear distinction between Israel and the church.12

Biblical Dispensations

As noted earlier, only three dispensations are discussed extensively in the Scriptures—the Law, grace (church), and the kingdom (the millennium)—though others are indicated in the Scriptures. For example The Scofield Reference Bible lists seven dispensations in the footnotes and then discusses each one subsequently in later footnotes. The seven are “Innocence (Gen. 1:28); Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 3:7); Human Government (Gen. 8:15); Promise (Gen. 12:1); Law (Ex. 19:1); Church (Acts 2:1); Kingdom (Rev. 20:4).”13 Wilmington, on the other hand, lists nine dispensations.

1. The dispensation of innocence (from creation of man to the fall of man); 2. The dispensation of conscience (from the fall to the flood); 3. The dispensation of civil government (from the flood to the disbursement of Babel); 4. The dispensation of promise or patriarchal rule (from Babel to Mount Sinai); 5. The dispensation of the Mosaic Law (from Mount Sinai to the upper room); 6. The dispensation of the bride of the Lamb, the Church (from the upper room to the Rapture); 7. The dispensation of the wrath of the Lamb—the tribulation (from the Rapture to the Second Coming); 8. The dispensation of the rule of the Lamb—the Millennium (from the Second Coming to the Great White Throne Judgment); 9. The dispensation of the new creation of the land—the world without end (from the Great White Throne Judgment throughout all eternity).14

Each dispensation includes requirements for human conduct. Some Bible students wrongly seek to apply prophecies of the future millennium to the present age. The progressive character of dispensationalism, however, means that it is wrong to bring prophecies of yet-future events and relate them to an earlier era. Nor is it proper to take elements of human conduct and responsibility from passages about Christ’s reign on earth in the millennium and apply them to today. Also a number of writers refer to passages on the Great Tribulation and its terrible disasters as if they will occur in the present dispensation of the church age. However, in the rapture the church will be taken out of the world before these events happen.

A recent development in dispensational circles is called progressive dispensationalism.15 Advocates of this view hold that Jesus Christ is now partially fulfilling the Davidic Covenant, seated in heaven on David’s throne and ruling over His kingdom as the Messiah and King. I believe, however, that Jesus’ present ministry in heaven involves His intercessory work for believers as their great High Priest, and that His messianic rule is not occurring now but will occur in the millennium. Progressive dispensationalists do affirm, however, their belief that Christ will reign over Israel in His thousand-year rule on the earth.

One of the best summaries of dispensations is found in the doctrinal statement of Dallas Theological Seminary.16 This states that dispensationalism is a form of stewardship or responsibility of humanity to obey God and to honor Him. Each dispensation recorded in the Bible ends in failure, thus proving that no one under any arrangement can achieve perfection or salvation. Even in the millennial kingdom, with its near-perfect circumstances, humanity will still fail.

In every dispensation salvation is by grace through faith, made possible by the death of Christ. On the one hand the dispensations have diversity of requirements for human conduct, but on the other hand salvation is always by God’s grace. Salvation is the unifying factor in Scripture.

It is most unfortunate that many people misunderstand dispensationalism. Even many of those who are dispensationalists tend to avoid using the term “dispensationalism” because it is often misunderstood. Those who claim that they are not dispensationalists are actually rejecting the wrong view of dispensationalism. For everyone is a dispensationalist—to a degree—whether he or she recognizes it or not.

---

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

---

¹ Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Scribner’s Son, 1857), 2:373-77.

² L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 293-301. Also Anthony A. Hoekema, an amillenarian who argues against dispensationalism, speaks of the Old Testament as “the period of shadows and types” and of the New Testament as “the period of fulfillment,” thereby acknowledging at least two eras of human history (The Bible and the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 195).

³ For example the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States stated that dispensationalism is “evil and subversive” (A Digest of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 1861-1965 [Atlanta: Office of the General Assembly, 1966], 50; see also 45-49). While this accusation was made several decades ago, that general attitude still prevails among many covenant theologians.

⁴ Pierre Poiret, The Divine Economy, 7 vols. (1687; reprint, London: R. Bonwicke, 1713). The seven dispensations he taught are Creation to the Deluge, the Deluge to Moses, Moses to the Prophets, the Prophets to Christ, Manhood and Old Age, the Christian Era, and Renovation of All Things.

⁵ John Edwards, A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations and Methods of Religion, 2 vols. (n. p.: Daniel Brown, 1699).

⁶ Isaac Watts, The Works of the Reverend and Learned Isaac Waats (Leeds, UK: Edward Bainer, 1800), 1:555-65; 2:626-60. Both Edwards and Watts discussed six dispensations: Innocency, Adamical, Noahical, Abrahamical, Mosaical, and Christian.

⁷ Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1966).

⁸ Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995).

⁹ Ibid., 25.

¹⁰ Ibid., 27 (italics his).

¹¹ Ibid., 28.

¹² However, not all premillenarians accept dispensationalism as a system.

¹³ C. I. Scofield, ed., The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 3. See also Stanley D. Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 81-91; and Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 51-57.

¹⁴ H. L. Wilmington, Book of Bible Lists (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1987).

¹⁵ Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1993); and Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

¹⁶ We Believe: Doctrinal Statement of Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.), Article V.