Part 6 of this series

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: God has a way of letting me know what questions to focus on when. I wasn’t expecting this post to so effectively wind up doubling as a Passover/Easter special, yet here we are!

It’s time to discuss what is perhaps Pulliam’s most intimidating argument against God having any plan to give the land back to Israel in the future. You’ll probably figure out why I call it his “most intimidating” if you compare it with many of the arguments I’ve already used to call him out over the course of this series.

We discussed the meaning of the words forever and everlasting in lesson 5. The broad range of duration does not pin down what God had in mind when He promised the land as an everlasting possession; however, the New Testament does clearly answer this question. The New Testament answer centers around the eternal purpose of God.

Ephesians 3:11 speaks of God’s eternal purpose, which Paul clearly affirms was carried out. In stating this, he used an aorist verb (past tense), meaning that it was accomplished at one singular point in time. We best understand an aorist verb in the following way: “The time of action is past. The kind of action is punctiliar. Thus is observed the difference between the imperfect and the aorist. The imperfect indicates continuous action in past time… the aorist indicates finished action in past time…” For the Dispensationalist’s view that the covenant is still being carried out, he needs for Paul to have said that God “is carrying out,” instead of “carried out.” In view of Paul’s choice of words, an honest heart must conclude that working out the eternal wisdom of God in the Abrahamic covenant has already been “carried out.”

Two chapters earlier, Paul referred to the present dispensation as the “fulness of the times,” and that God was “summing up” all things in Christ (Eph 1:9-10). “Summing up” is in the aorist tense. God is not, presently, in the process of “summing up” all things, nor will He do so in a Dispensational Millennium of the future. God has already summed up all things in the sacrifice of Jesus.

{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 65,67. Italics, boldface, and content in parentheses in original. See also source cited therein.}

Hidden Premises & False Dichotomies

My main question is: How does Pulliam know that the ‘eternal purpose’ of Ephesians 3:11 is referring to the Abrahamic covenant? Why not, say, just Christ’s substitutionary atonement? Granted, I suspect he’ll respond to that by just pointing to his chart at the bottom of p. 67:

Sounds pretty feasible, right? This is an example of why I called Pulliam’s hermeneutic “sickeningly allegorical” in my previous post {Scroll to the paragraph just above “Revelation 1:3 — A “Slam Dunk” For Preterists?”. Italics in original.}: it’s so easy for those who don’t know any better to fall for it and be led astray.

The problem with this analogy is that it’s only appropriate if the vehicle (a) is intended to be abandoned, and (b) has completely accomplished its purpose before its abandonment. Pulliam’s argument here assumes both, but proves neither. In fact, premise (a) is disproven by so many passages that my discussion on them is very long-winded, and it’s so easy to disprove premise (b) that I’ll just do it right now. God told Abraham: “I will give to you and to your descendants [literally, “seed”; singular, as Paul points out in Galatians 3:16] after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:8 1995 NASB, boldface added) Yet Stephen (Acts 7:5) and the author of Hebrews (11:8-10,13) both plainly state (after the gospel had already begun to spread–and in the case of Hebrews, after Paul wrote Ephesians!) that Abraham never inherited any of the land God promised to give him! Hence, that promise is not yet fulfilled! When I brought this to Pulliam’s attention during that fateful Wednesday night Bible study of his I attended in 2023, he retorted that “Abraham was never meant to inherit the land himself” (emphasis his). But that amounts to claiming that God lied to Abraham when He used the phrasing “to you and to your seed”! And lest Pulliam suggest that Abraham received the land “vicariously” through Christ, you might be able to squeeze that out of the Hebrew phrasing “לך בּזרעך” (to you in/by/through your seed); but the phrasing in Genesis 17:8 is actually “לך וּלזרעך” (to you and to your seed). To reinforce the point, here’s Tim Warner’s response to Church of Christ minister and amillennialist Norm Fields’ attempt to explain this away (which was similar to the straw-grasp I just refuted):

The best that Fields could conjure up was that Abraham was a representative of his own seed, and therefore he personally received the land inheritance in some mystical way when his descendants went into the land under Joshua. Yet, this does not remove the contradiction for Fields, because the promise was to Abraham himself AND (in addition) to his seed.… Fields says Abraham received all the land that was promised to him. Steven and Paul said he did not receive any of it. “Any doctrinal position that requires Scriptural contradictions cannot be the true doctrine of Christ.” {Scroll to p. 2 in the PDF. All-caps and italics in original.}

But the question remains: what was the “eternal purpose” of Ephesians 3:11? Well, it’s noteworthy that on the page just before that remark, Warner gives us his take on the phrase in the course of calling out the dishonest tactics Fields had engaged in at the end of the previous round of their debate:

In response to my answer, Fields gave a series of non-sequitur arguments and false dichotomies which have absolutely nothing to do with my statement. That the church is “God’s eternal purpose,” or that Christ “purchased His church with His own blood,” or that Christ was “foreordained to be our sacrificial lamb from eternity,” have nothing to do with my statement, and are all things I agree with. Fields then writes, “according to Warner, the blood of Christ was limited in its power to accomplish the eternal purpose of God.” That is pure nonsense. Christ’s sacrifice has the power to cleanse every sin of every human being. However God’s plan of restoration (of both man and the creation) is progressive, and occurs in stages over an extended period of time. That in no way limits God’s power. {Ibid. p. 1. Boldface, underlining, and italics in original.}

But to my disappointment, he never actually explained how he reached his conclusions that “the church is ‘God’s eternal purpose’ … [and that this has] nothing to do with my statement [“The Christian’s hope is not heaven, but the return of Christ to reign over the nations upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem, and to renovate this earth as the permanent inheritance of Jesus Christ and all who are in Him.” {p. 1. Italics in original, hyperlink added.}], and [is something] I agree with” elsewhere in the debate. So it looks like I’ll have to work out the logic behind it myself.

I’ve already shown that Warner’s statement (which I completely agree with–unlike Traditional Dispensationalists, who believe that the Christian’s hope is heaven, and that the rest of Warner’s statement summarizes the hope of Israelites only) is perfectly compatible with other Scriptural passages that Pulliam claims rule out Christ reigning in Jerusalem. I likewise point out in the second-to-last paragraph of this section of another post that: “I agree that individual Israelites will be saved in the present age by embracing Jesus as their Messiah and obeying him accordingly, but why should that rule out a restoration of Israel on the national level?” {Italics in original.} In the same vein as the latter, why should the Church being the “eternal purpose” of Ephesians 3:11 rule out the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Land Promise being still future? How is it not possible for both to be true at once–especially in light of the fact that “the Church” doesn’t refer to Christians only, but to the collective of all the faithful throughout history, including ancient Israelites who died in faith with the fulfillment of that promise as part of their hope for eternity future? Clearly, Warner’s remark about “false dichotomies” applies to Pulliam’s arguments just as much as it does to Fields’.

So now all that remains is to give a rigorous explanation of Ephesians 1:9-10 & 3:9-11, to show the understanding my hermeneutic leads to. (After all, simply saying “the passage isn’t talking about that” isn’t very satisfying if you can’t then demonstrate what the passage is talking about!) So, here goes nothing.

Mystery, Mystery, Mystery

You may have noticed in my citations from Pulliam’s book earlier in this post that I skipped p. 66. That’s because that whole page is occupied by a chart. But ironically, that chart saves me a good amount of work on this exposition, so let’s start with it:

You may be surprised to learn that I agree with most of the points being made in this chart! The main things I disagree with are his labelling of the “Age That Now Is (The Church)” and the “Age to Come (Eternity)”, as if “The Church” refers to a time period–“the Church Age” might be an acceptable label for a time period (I prefer “the Christian Era” because it doesn’t allow hermeneutical gymnastics over the word “church”), but “The Church” on its own is not–and his attempt to sever the Abrahamic Land Promise from the Age to Come. Also, while the instance of “(I Corinthians 10:11)” on the left is a correct citation, the quote labeled “(I Corinthians 10:11)” on the right is actually Ephesians 1:21, which is appropriate enough to link with Ephesians 1:9-10 & 3:9-11.

And when we look more carefully at the fuller contexts of all these passages, we find that they do indeed synthesize into something incredible: for starters, several of these passages are blatantly referring to Jesus’ crucifixion, the resulting atonement, and/or the church!

“Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;” (1 Corinthians 2:6-8 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added; OT prophecies about the Atonement were written more cryptically than prophecies about the Kingdom so that Satan wouldn’t understand them properly, and end up sealing his own fate by having the demonic forces encourage events that would lead to Jesus’ crucifixion.)

“I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places [better, “heavenly dominions”; note in particular how nonsensical Ephesians 2:6 is with “heavenly places“, and how this absurdity vanishes with “heavenly dominions“], far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to [better, “in”] the church {Scroll to “Ephesians 1:20-23”}, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:18-23 1995 NASB, boldface added)

“but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested;” (Hebrews 9:26 YLT, boldface added; the LGV renders the word for “full end” as “completion”, and adds a footnote after the phrase “at the completion of the ages” that reads as follows: “In chapter 4, Paul spoke of the Kingdom of Christ (Millennium) as the “seventh day” and “Sabbath,” implying six previous “days” or millennial ages. In Heb. 1:2 & 11:3 he spoke of Christ’s having organized the “ages” (plural). Paul was not indicating that Jesus Christ was crucified at the extreme end of all ages, because that would conflict with his other statements about Christ’s second coming and the Kingdom age being future. Rather, he placed Jesus’ crucifixion at a point in time when one millennial age ended and another began. In fact, Jesus’ ministry and death was at the close of the first four millennial ages.” {Scroll to p. 22 of this PDF.} Warner’s interpretation is bolstered by the Greek word being συντελείᾳ (synteleia; G4930), which also shows up in Matthew 28:20; see the table under “Matthew 28:19” in this post, where I render that noun as “border” and point out that it literally means “together-end”.)

But what about the outliers? Let’s consider 1 Corinthians 10:11 first, since its explanation is distinct from all the others:

“But all these things were happening to them [as] illustrations, and it was written for our warning unto whom came the endings of the ages.” (LGV) {Scroll to p. 18-19 in the PDF; Warner includes a footnote at the end of this verse explaining: “That is, Christians are appointed to see the culmination of God’s promises and threats, since Israel failed (See Heb. 3-4).” Of course, I already covered the relevant points regarding Hebrews 3-4 here.}

As for all the others, you’ll soon see that they’re interconnected in a very deep and profound way. Let’s consider the passage in Colossians next:

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in [literally, “of”] Christ’s afflictions. 25 Of this church I was made [literally, “became”] a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of [literally, “for you, to make full”] the word of God, 26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with [literally, “in”] all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29 For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.
1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally [literally, “not in the flesh”] seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from [literally, “wealth of”] the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 1:24-2:3 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)

This passage identifies the “mystery”, not with Christ’s substitutionary atonement (as seen in the passages above), but with Christ himself and the Church’s hope. However, the underlined phrases suggest that the Church being “Christ’s body” means more than just being a group of people who represent Christ on Earth. Rather, God reckons them as being part of Christ’s physical body, as we see in between the Ephesians passages! (I’ve already explained here that “the commonwealth of Israel” — verse 12b YLT — was already understood by Paul and his readers as inheriting the Covenants of Promise, and that God’s Son died so that his unfaithful bride could be released from her Old marriage contract and be remarried to him, the “one new man”, under the New marriage contract–just as an unfaithful wife under the Mosaic Law was not allowed to marry someone else until her first husband died; see Romans 7:1-4.)

14 for he is our peace, who did make both [Jewish and Gentile believers] one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down, 15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new [properly, “renewed”; the Greek word, G2537, connotes freshness, rather than youth] man, making peace, 16 and might reconcile both in one body [Jesus’ body on the cross] to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it, 17 and having come, he did proclaim good news — peace to you — the far-off and the nigh, 18 because through him we have the access — we both — in one Spirit unto the Father. (Ephesians 2:14-18 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

In fact, Ephesians 3:9-11 (the very passage that prompted this post in the first place!) also alludes to this.

and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places [dominions]. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose [literally, “the purpose of the ages”] which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord (Ephesians 3:9-11 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)

The NASB phrasing “the administration of the mystery” follows the oldest manuscripts and the majority of manuscripts, which is why most English translations have “administration” or “plan” here (the ASV has “dispensation”, highlighting a possible connection with the Latin Vulgate, which has dispensatio). But the KJV, Webster Bible, YLT, NKJV, and LGV follow the Textus Receptus here, which has “fellowship” instead of “administration”. And intriguingly, that minority reading, “the fellowship of the mystery/secret”, has an extra connection with something the Apostle John wrote a couple decades or so later–and it just so happens to cohere perfectly with all the other passages we just looked at:

That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we did behold, and our hands did handle, concerning the Word of the Life — and the Life was manifested, and we have seen, and do testify, and declare to you the Life, the age-[en]during, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us — that which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ; and these things we write to you, that your joy may be full [literally, “may be having been filled”; perfect-tense passive participle].

And this is the message that we have heard from Him, and announce to you, that God is light, and darkness in Him is not at all; if we may say — ‘we have fellowship with Him,’ and in the darkness may walk — we lie, and do not the truth; and if in the light we may walk, as He is in the light — we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son doth cleanse us from every sin; (1 John 1:1-7 YLT, boldface and underlining added)

In light of Paul’s clarification in Colossians 2:2 that Christ himself is “the mystery”, it looks like John was expanding on the phrase “the fellowship of the mystery”–which would only make sense if Paul had already used that phrase (remember, John’s writings were meant to reinforce Paul’s epistles); and unless you go with the Textus Receptus reading of Ephesians 3:9, he doesn’t! Warner even points out a grammatical nuance to John’s writings in a note on John 1:13.

Whenever John referred to Christians being ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (“the having been begotten out of God”) he always used the singular number and the perfect tense. The perfect tense describes a present state that is the result of past completed action (1 Jn. 3:9; 1 Jn. 4:7; 1 Jn. 5:1,4,18). The singular number describes a class of people, not individuals. In baptism believers are “begotten from above” (John 3:3-5) by being joined to the “only-begotten of the Father.” Thus baptized Christians are considered one with Christ as a single entity. However, here John used the aorist passive indicative which indicates a one-time historical event without implying that the result continued to the present. This is because the next verse says “and Logos became flesh,” showing that Logos’ former divine nature did not continue in His humanity (cf. Phil. 2:5-8). This distinction between the singular aorist tense form (referring to the Son’s origin as historically “begotten” out of God) vs. the perfect tense form (referring to the whole class of believers joined to the Son, and thus considered part of “the Begotten”) is also the key to properly understanding two seemingly difficult verses, 1 John 3:9 & 5:18. The whole entity of “the having been begotten out of God” does not sin, because “the Seed [the Son] of Him remains among it,” (the Anointed one remains among the assembly by the holy Breath) which is not able to sin because “out of God it has been begotten” (1 Jn. 3:9). Also, “the whole having been begotten out of God” does not sin because “the One who was begotten [aorist tense – the Son] preserves it, and the wicked do not touch it” (1 John 5:18). Jesus’ prayer in chapter 17 clarifies this concept in which He spoke of the redeemed as a single entity – one – just as the Father and Son are one (viewed as one even though consisting of many distinct persons). In Johannine theology, all of the redeemed become one with Christ and are considered “the whole having been begotten out of God” because Logos was originally and literally begotten out of God. {Scroll to p. 3-4 in the PDF. Italics, boldface, and underlining in original.}

Finally, while Pulliam rightly tried to interpret Ephesians 3:11 in light of 1:9-10, he failed to in turn consider those verses in light of their context:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places [dominions] in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world [literally, “before the casting down of the world order”; this phrase refers to the Fall of Man, not the Creation Week], that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us [note that the predestination is on the collective level, not the individual level] to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted [literally, “He highly favored us”; aorist active indicative] in the Beloved [literally, “in the one having been beloved”; perfect-tense passive singular masculine participle].

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both [following TR; this word is absent in NA28 and the Majority Text] which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance [compare Galatians 3:16,26-29], being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted [literally, “we, the ones having previously hoped”] in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:3-12 NKJV, boldface and underlining added)

Both of the underlined phrases are referring to the nation of Israel. How can I tell? Well, for the phrase “we, the ones having previously hoped in Christ”, not only does everything after the comma rule out anyone up until Paul’s time who wasn’t aware of (and thus, couldn’t place hope in) Messianic prophecies (the bulk of which were given to Israel), but by using the word “we”, Paul was including himself among the group he was referring to. Paul wasn’t an Antediluvian Son of God (Genesis 4:26 LXX, Genesis 6:1-4, Revelation 14:1-5), or a Patriarch, but an Israelite (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5). As for “the one having been beloved”, this term occurs only here in the NT, but grammatical variants of it occur in the Septuagint, the earliest of which come from Moses:

And this is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. And he said, The Lord is come from Sina, and has appeared from Seir to us, and has hasted out of the mount of Pharan, with the ten thousands of Cades; on his right hand were his angels with him. And he spared his people, and all his sanctified ones are under thy hands; and they are under thee; and he received of his words the law which Moses charged us, an inheritance to the assemblies of Jacob. And he shall be prince with [literally, “in”] the beloved one [perfect-tense middle singular masculine participle], when the princes of the people are gathered together with the tribes of Israel.…

And to Benjamin he said, The beloved [perfect-tense middle singular masculine participle, but nominative instead of dative this time] of the Lord shall dwell in confidence, and God overshadows him always, and he rested between his shoulders.

…There is not any such as the God of the beloved [perfect-tense middle singular masculine participle, but genitive this time]; he who rides upon the heaven is thy helper, and the magnificent One of the firmament. And the rule of God shall protect thee, and that under the strength of the everlasting arms; and he shall cast forth the enemy from before thy face, saying, Perish. And Israel shall dwell in confidence alone on the land of Jacob, with corn and wine; and the sky shall be misty with dew upon thee. Blessed art thou, O Israel; who is like to thee, O people saved by the Lord? thy helper shall hold his shield over thee, and his sword is thy boast; and thine enemies shall speak falsely to thee, and thou shalt tread upon their neck.

(Deuteronomy 33:1-5,12,26-29 BLXX, boldface and underlining added)

Other passages that use this term for Israel include the following:

And he will beat them small, even Libanus itself, like a calf; and the beloved one [nominative singular masculine perfect-tense middle participle] is as a young unicorn [i.e., rhinoceros]. (Psalm 29:6 [28:6 by the LXX verse numbering] BLXX; underlining added)

Thus saith the Lord God that made thee, and he that formed thee from the womb; Thou shalt yet be helped: fear not, my servant Jacob; and beloved [nominative singular masculine perfect-tense middle participle] Israel, whom I have chosen. (Isaiah 44:2 BLXX, underlining added)

Why has my [literally, “the”] beloved [nominative singular feminine perfect-tense middle participle] wrought abomination in my house? will prayers and holy offerings take away thy wickedness from thee, or shalt thou escape by these things? (Jeremiah 11:15 BLXX, underlining added)

In light of this, the fact that Paul includes his Christian readers in Ephesus as those God “highly favored… in the one having been beloved” implies that they will now get to partake in “the covenants of the promise” along with “the commonwealth of Israel” (Ephesians 2:12 YLT). Moreover, the fact that all of these participles are in the perfect tense implies that the loving continues to the present!

Conclusion

All in all, I fail to see what problems these passages present for my position. They all coalesce into a beautiful doctrine about the faithful being beloved along with “the commonwealth of Israel”, reconciled to have fellowship with Christ and his Father through his own death on the cross to atone for us, freeing Israelites from their obligations under the Old marriage contract so they can marry their resurrected Groom under the New one (Jeremiah 31:31-40; Hosea 1-3) and Gentiles from their slavery to sin so they can become children of the resulting union (Isaiah 8:18), allowing Jew and Gentile alike to become part of “one new man”, reckoned by the Father to be as pure as His only-begotten (but now human) Son in his glorified body–and thus, as worthy as His Son to inherit the Kingdom, including the land that Abraham will possess forevermore.