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”. 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.”
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”. 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;
[4]Vincent, M. R. (2002). Word studies in the New
Testament (4:180). Bellingham,
WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment