Saturday, August 25, 2012

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the purposes of God?

In my view NO!!!!


Why should we reject the replacement view?

 We should reject the replacement view because at best it implies God is duplicitous, and at worst it makes Him a liar. The plain meaning of Scripture is that God has made Covenant promises to Israel and He is expected to fulfill them. The basic Abrahamic Covenant which was the foundation for the Land, Davidic and New Covenants was established in a way to preclude any doubt. “For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, “Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.” And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”. (Heb. 6:13-20) If this Scripture means anything, it means that God does not change His mind; and remember, it was written by a Jew to other Jews. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles wrote of the chosen people,  “Concerning … election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”. (Rom. 11:28-29) The dictionary meaning of irrevocable is: “not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered”.[1] The Bible declares, “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Num. 23:19) The temptation in the Garden of Eden began, “Has God indeed said”. (Gen. 3:1)  We maintain He has said – He declared that the seed of Abraham will come into the full blessing of salvation, they will know God, from the least to the greatest of them, they will inherit the Land and they will enjoy the honor of being the people of God, the wife of Jehovah and His special treasure. If the Jewish people cannot rely on the Covenant promises of God, then how can Gentile believers have any confidence in God’s word?

 But those that contend that the New Covenant is now the possession of the Church would suggest that it did not require God to change His mind. That it is simply a matter of interpretation. They would suggest that where you read Israel in the T’nach you could substitute Church, for the Church was in view all along. That it was always the divine intention that Israel should be put forward in Scripture as a type of the Church. If it is said that God did not mean what He said through the Old Testament writers, but rather there was a hidden meaning beneath the  text, that would seem to imply again that God is less than honest. It suggests that Israel was only commissioned to produce the environment for the birth of the Messiah, the seed of the woman, and once that purpose was accomplished the nation was superseded by the Church as His people. This scenario certainly flies in the face of what Dr. David L. Cooper, late director of the Biblical Society, put forward as the ‘Golden Rule of Interpretation’, that is, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”[2] Simply put, this law states that ALL biblical passages are to be taken exactly as they read unless something in the text indicates it should be taken some other way than literally.

But the replacement theologian will respond to say – we are not imposing this doctrine on Scripture, it arises from new revelation that is available from the inspired writers of the New Testament. Progressive revelation means that we must re-read the Old Testament in the light of the more recent revelation provided by the New. LaRondelle has stated, “the New Testament is the authorized and authoritative interpreter of the Old Testament”.[3] On this basis, supercessionists feel comfortable in rejecting a literal interpretation of Old Testament texts, and are able to say that the literal texts relating to Israel are now finding their spiritual fulfillment in the Church.

The difficulty with this view is that the clear statements of the Old Testament have to be re-interpreted on very flimsy grounds. It suggests that with the New Testament in our hands we are able to say that God did not mean what He said then but that He meant something else. If that is the case, would He have not included a statement to that effect in the New Testament? But there is no text that says that Israel has been permanently rejected, and been replaced by the Church. This statement, of course, would be challenged by those that hold the replacement view. They contend that there are such texts. Essential to their case is Galatians 6.16. “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God”.  For their position to hold, this has to be translated as the NIV84 translates it: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God”. They require the Greek word ‘kai’ to be translated ‘even’ and not ‘and’, thus making those who walk according to the rule previously advertised, “the Israel of God”. Yet the most common use of ‘kai’ is ‘and’ (the continuative or copulative (joining) sense).  The second most frequent use is the adjunctive sense ‘also’.  The sense of ‘even’ (the explicative sense) is very rare.  Thus the NASB; NRSV; ESV; ASV; NKJV; KJV and Darby all translate it ‘and’. The Greek scholar Marvin Vincent explains, “The καὶ and may be simply connective, in which case the Israel of God may be different from as many as walk, etc., and may mean truly converted Jews. Or the καὶ may be explicative, in which case the Israel of God will define and emphasize as many as, etc., and will mean the whole body of Christians, Jewish and Gentile. In other words, they who walk according to this rule form the true Israel of God. The explicative καὶ is at best doubtful here, and is rather forced, although clear instances of it may be found in 1 Cor. 3:5; 15:38. It seems better to regard it as simply connective[4] (my emphasis). To rely on a verse that is not rock solid in its meaning is weakening to their case.

Moreover, every other reference in both Old and New Testaments that uses the word ‘Israel’ uses it in its ethnic sense. You would have to have compelling reasons to change its meaning in Gal.6.16 and the context does not provide those compelling reasons.

More Next Time;

[1] Concise Oxford English Dictionary
[2] See Biblical Research Studies Group at  www.biblicalresearch.info/page 55.html
[3] LaRondelle, ‘The Israel of God in Prophecy’
[4]Vincent, M. R. (2002). Word studies in the New Testament (4:180). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

We have considered the covenants of Israel. Now we have to face the question, was Israel permanently rejected as the people of God because they rejected the Messianic claim of Jesus? The question is usually phrased:

Has the Church Replaced Israel in the Purposes of God?

It is necessary to consider this subject because we maintain that the Church came into blessing on the grounds of a covenant which the Lord made with Israel – a covenant, which according to Scripture, has not yet been implemented for them as a nation. The replacement view maintains that the dynamics of the implementation of the New Covenant has removed Israel as the beneficiary of the Covenant and substituted them with the Church. They maintain that this major shift in divine policy was made as a result of Israel’s national rejection of Jesus, their Messiah. Stated simply - because they rejected their Messiah, God rejected them, and replaced them with the Church. Consequently the Church inherited the covenant blessings originally promised to Israel. Thomas Ice said that replacement theology “is the view that the Church has permanently replaced Israel through which God works and that national Israel does not have a future in the plan of God”.[1] Replacement theologian, Bruce K. Waltke said, “The hard fact (is) that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the Church and the New Covenant”.[2] We need to be very sure of our ground here, because we began by stating that a main feature of God’s glory was His ḥesed ve-ʾemet. Ḥesed is His loving kindness, that quality that involves acts of beneficence, mutuality, and those obligations that flow from a legal relationship. ʾEmet, usually translated “truth,” encompasses reliability, durability, and faithfulness. The combination of the two terms expresses God’s absolute and eternal dependability in dispensing His benefactions. If He has, even in the smallest degree, withdrawn any element of an unconditional covenant with His ancient people, then the concept of the glory of God being best seen in His faithfulness and reliability must be undermined.

 It is true that the national implementation of the New Covenant for Israel was delayed because of the national rejection of the Messianic claim of Jesus, but as we have already indicated, the New Covenant was activated immediately by the Messiah for individual Israelites if they qualified to benefit from it. In other words, individual Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah became beneficiaries under the New Covenant. Let us restate our view that while the national implementation of the Covenant is yet future, the execution of the Covenant for individual Jews is current.Every Israelite who acknowledges the person and work of Yeshua HaMashiac (Jesus the Messiah) comes under the New Covenant and is ‘born again’ (to use a Jewish term). We also believe that Gentiles can come into blessing on the same grounds, that is, on the basis of the New Covenant, by acknowledging the person and work of Jesus the Messiah, Son of David, Son of God. This comes about because of the desire of the Lord that His salvation should reach the ends of the earth.[3]

 That the door was opened to the Gentiles to ‘share’ in the blessings of the New Covenant does not mean that the multi-national group of believers, corporately called ‘the Church’ has replaced the national ethnic group called ‘Israel’ in the purposes of God. But the rejection of the replacement view needs to be supported by more than statements.

More Next Time :

[1] Thomas Ice, “What do you do with a future National Israel in the Bible,” The Thomas Ice Collection, n.d., p. 2.
[2] Bruce K. Waltke “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual”, in Continuity and Discontinuity, 274 (quoted by Michael J. Vlach in his dissertation ‘The Church as a Replacement of Israelp.12)
[3]  Isa.49.6

Monday, August 6, 2012

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

The Church and the Abrahamic Covenant

A comparison of Israel and the Church - The Similarities

While there are contrasts between Israel and the Church, it should be observed that, in certain respects, there are similarities between these two groups of people, which are only to be expected. It is still the same God, with the same principles of righteousness. He will always act in love and mercy and will always be found of the individual who would seek Him with all their heart.


(i)                       Both Israel and the Church have a relationship to God which at rock bottom stands on the ground of faith. Salvation through all dispensations will be ‘by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone’. The only difference is the means by which God’s mercy is dispensed.


(ii)                     So each, in turn, has its own peculiar relation to God, to righteousness, to sin, to redemption, to salvation, to human responsibility, and to destiny.


(iii)                   They are each witnesses to the Word of God; each may claim the same Shepherd; they have doctrines in common; the death of Christ avails in its own way for each; they are alike loved with an everlasting love; and each, as determined by God, will be glorified.


The similarities, in part, have given rise to a doctrine of replacement, that is, that since the language of Scripture speaks of the Church in a similar way to that which treats of Israel, then the Church, the entity brought into being subsequent to the rejection of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, must be Israel’s replacement. It is suggested that the Church is now the true ‘seed’ of Abraham; that the circumcision of the heart is the true ‘circumcision’. Those that hold to this view of Scripture believe that the Church has superseded Israel in the purposes of God. This doctrine has been held by the majority of believers since the second century A.D. But is it correct? No doubt, the reader already understands that this writer does not subscribe to replacement theology. But on what grounds? We will examine the replacement view in the next chapter, but before that we can take a look at the land aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Church and the ‘land’ aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant
 
The treatment of this subject will, of necessity, be very brief. In the Abrahamic Covenant the land was promised to the natural ‘seed’ of Abraham as a homeland. The Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal, unconditional covenant. Therefore, the Jewish people will receive it, and occupy it as promised. The Land will live up to its description of fruitfulness, that is, a land flowing with milk and honey.[1] It will be a place of peace and safety and righteousness will be its hallmark. Its inhabitants will work and be productive and enjoy not only the fruits of their labor but also all aspects of life under the watchful eye of the God that neither slumbers nor sleeps.[2] Jerusalem will be the capital city of the world, and the throne of David will be set up there, in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. It will be from Jerusalem that Jesus will reign when He returns. In view of the foregoing, it can be stated clearly – the Church has no title to the land of Israel, nor in the will of God, will she occupy it at any time. It has been promised to the ethnic race of Israel and they will inherit and inhabit it. It will require the nation to return to the God of Jacob and receive Jesus as Messiah, Son of David and Son of God – this they will do – as foretold by the prophets of Israel.

Next Time: Has the Church replaced Israel in the Purposes of God?

[1] Isa.30.23-26; 35.1,2; 65.21-24; etc.
[2] Ps.121.4; Jer.31.1-6; 11-14; Ezek.34.25-31. etc