The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Concluding Summary

The Abrahamic Covenant.

 

We began by suggesting that the purpose of God, formed before the foundation of the world, was that He was set on creating a living organism with which He could have fellowship. He was aiming to bring into being, a complex and unique group of living creatures, who together would be able to receive and give love. And because this unit, which we can now identify as the Church, would be made up of many and varied individuals, it would be of such caliber and stature that it would be a worthy object of the love and attention of the Godhead.

The Abrahamic Covenant was the beginning of that process. Abraham was to be father of the faithful –‘the faithful’ being drawn from all nations. Abraham, elected by God to be the door through which abundant blessings would flow, began the process. He believed God and was imputed righteous. From his loins came the nation that would bring the knowledge of God, understand fellowship with God and recognize the righteousness of God.

The Mosaic Covenant.

This covenant was designed to continue the underlying purpose of God. The nation was to be trained in righteousness and fellowship. God dwelt among them – they knew His presence – they heard His word – they had His protection. The covenant not only laid on them obedience to the righteous requirements of the Lord, but they were also commanded to love Him. They were being trained to take their place in new entity that was the ultimate goal of God.

The Land Covenant

The land covenant which imposed conditions on the occupation of the Promised Land was designed to encourage the faithfulness of Israel. Be faithful and be safe in your homeland; but if you apostatize you will be evicted.

The Davidic Covenant

This covenant, while initially being part of the plan of God to bring to Israel the Messiah, the promised seed of Abraham, was also a great encouragement to them through dark times. While this covenant was in place (and it was always in place) they always had hope. They could anticipate a Deliverer, a Son of David to come and rescue them.

The New Covenant

This was promised to the nation during one of its darkest periods. When things were at their worst God made a covenant promise that there would be a day when the nation would come into the fullness of the blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant. This was where the Abrahamic Covenant was pointing – to the blessing of God upon the nation, which would also be the catalyst for blessing for the whole of humankind.

The Messiah

Jesus of Nazareth, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, was the ‘seed’ of Abraham, and the instrument by which the Abrahamic Covenant could be fulfilled. He was a law abiding Hebrew who obeyed and fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant in every aspect. He knew His covenants and prophesied that His rejection would activate the Land Covenant, and Israel would lose their temple, city and homeland. But He also knew that a future quickening of both the Davidic and New Covenants would bring blessing to the nation and they would again occupy the land and enjoy fellowship with the God that had chosen them. In the meantime, His death, the great act that allowed an immediate activation of the New Covenant, was to be of such a magnitude that the salvation of God would reach the ends of the earth. So any individual who recognizes who He is and what He has done has access to the blessings that are available under the Abrahamic and New Covenants.

The Church

Those believers who now make up the members of the body of the Messiah, the Church, rejoice that God elected a man, ‘cut’ a covenant with him, trained the nation that came from him by means of a conditional covenant, and offered them unconditional covenants by which the means of salvation could proliferate to all people. The members of the Church recognize that the benefits of salvation come to them through the death of the Jewish Messiah, and they have eternal life because they can share in the blessings of the Abrahamic and New Covenants. Consequently they acknowledge the debt they owe to the Hebrew nation, and are happy to confess that Israel remains God’s chosen people, and they still feature in His future plans.

The Nation of Israel

The Scriptures teach that they will yet come into the fullness of the Abrahamic Covenant; they will possess the Land; they will know success in a kingdom ruled under in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant; for the nation will be saved on the basis of the New Covenant.

 

This brings us to the end of this particular study. I am considering closing this blog. If any that read would wish me to continue, please email me to say so. I can be reached at bryan@bryansbiblestudy.co.uk

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the Purposes of God?

We continue with a rebuttal of replacement theology

We suggested last time that the disobedience of Israel cannot invalidate a covenant that was unconditional. But it might be suggested that God is sovereign and it is His covenant and He can do as He wishes. No, He cannot! Everything in Scripture declares that God cannot do anything that is illegal, under-handed or unrighteous. And to take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, how is it that those that say the Church is now the beneficiary of these Covenants, cling firmly to the idea that there are no conditions placed on the Church for remaining the beneficiary? If the Lord could put aside Israel for disobedience, how is it that the Church remains inviolable. Even a cursory glance at Church history would suggest that the Church should have been put aside, just as Israel was, and the benefits passed on to another group. No, the confidence we have is that God is omniscient, that is, He is all wise, He sees the end from the beginning. He is also immutable; He is unchanging, unchangeable and unchanged. This surely includes the sense that He does not change His mind. “The word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:25) The very chapter (Jeremiah 31) which includes the foundational text for the New Covenant declares that God loves Israel with an everlasting love.[1] There is no way in which they will not enjoy future blessing from His hand. It is our confidence that what He has promised He will perform that leads us to believe that we are in possession of eternal life. If it is or becomes conditional at any time, then few of us will see heaven.

 Conclusion

 The texts currently used to support replacement theology fail at each point. Israel is never said to be permanently rejected by God. The titles ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’ are never used of Gentile believers. Old Testament language can be applied to the Church without the Church becoming Israel. Believing Gentiles can become ‘sons’ of Abraham without becoming Jews. Spiritual equality between Jew and Gentile does not mean that there will not be a functional distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the future. Access to the New Covenant by the Church does not annul a future eschatological fulfillment with Israel.

 Does it matter which doctrine is correct? Of course it does. At stake here is the character of God – is He trustworthy?  Can we rely on His promises? There are three unconditional covenants for Israel to delight in - the Abrahamic, the Davidic and the New Covenant. If He has set aside the Jewish nation then He has broken His word.

 Moreover, the great doctrines of the Bible are inter-connected. To be in error in one area will impact on other main streams of truth. For example the Lord is pleased to be known as the “God of Israel”,[2] the “God of Abraham”,[3] as well as the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod. 3.6), a title which was confirmed and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22.32. Are these titles now to be jettisoned because we have de-Judaized the covenantal God of the T’nach?

 Then there is the doctrine of the Messiah Himself, better known as ‘Christology’. Supercessionism has, to a degree, reduced our appreciation of the Jewishness of Jesus. We do not give sufficient importance to the nation and history that produced the Savior of the world. We do not draw extra light from understanding His Jewish background, for He was born of a Jewish virgin, had a Davidic lineage and taught as a travelling Rabbi.

 The greatest impact, it would appear, is on ‘eschatology’, that is the doctrine of the end times. Since, under replacement teaching the Jewish nation has been set aside, there can be no expectation of their restoration. Under supercessionism there will be no return of the nation to their land, no future Temple and no Jewish evangelists on a mission to the Gentiles. This view of future events will require a manipulation of all the Scriptures that deal with the rapture of the Church, the period of tribulation, the return of Christ, the Millennial kingdom and judgments to come.

 Those who hold a supercessionist outlook must find the Old Testament a very uncomfortable book, for it makes it clear that it is impossible for the Jewish nation to be separated from God, for they are “inscribed on the palms of (His) hands” (Isaiah 49.16). As long as He occupies the throne of heaven, the position of the Jewish nation must remain secure, and the Church can remain confident in their covenant keeping God. Because He will keep His covenant promises to Israel, we can be assured that our future in His care is safe, because that is the blanket of blessing under which we rest.

 

More Next Time:

---

[1] Jer.31.3

[2] There are 203 references to this Name, some of them owned by the Lord Himself.

[3] There are 17 references to this identification, including some which speak of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the purposes of God

We continue our rebuttal of replacement theology.

Much of the material that fuels replacement theology comes from the fact that the nation rejected their Messiah, and accepted their part in His crucifixion when they said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matt. 27:25) It is true that Jesus, anticipating His execution warned the chief priests and elders of the nation, saying, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it”. (Matt. 21:43) This, it is suggested, supports the view that Israel lost their place in the purposes of God, and was replaced by the Church. Alas, this is very poor ground to build on. It is true that Israel at that time was set aside. Paul makes the point in Romans that the branch ‘Israel’ being unfruitful was set aside and the Church has benefited greatly from it.[1] But Jesus could not have intended that the word ‘nation’ should describe the Church - the Church cannot, in any sense, being considered a ‘nation’, whereas Israel is clearly considered a nation. The Matthew 21.43 text surely relates to the fact that the kingdom of God will be given to a future generation of Israel who will have accepted Jesus as Messiah. This is supported by the fact that Jesus anticipated such a day when He promised the apostles, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel”. (Matt.19:28) He clearly envisaged a day when the kingdom would be a reality and the apostles would co-reign with Him over it. This is the kingdom in question, and that will be the generation of Israel that will be blessed in it.

And anyway, how can the disobedience of Israel invalidate a legal covenant that was unconditional? Any examination of the Abrahamic Covenant or the New Covenant will conclude that there were no conditions placed on Israel. They are the beneficiaries, and the covenants are covenants of grant, that is, God has committed Himself to fulfill the conditions of the covenants. Those that maintain that the disobedience of Israel meant they failed to meet the standard of behavior required of them, and it was within the remit of the Lord to replace Israel with the Church in respect of the Covenant are mistaken. Again, the plain understanding of Scripture does not support this.

 

Furthermore, under any understanding of covenant law it would be illegal to replace one  beneficiary with another in a covenant where the subsequent beneficiary was not named. It must be asserted that you cannot legally, morally or spiritually transfer God’s covenant with one group of people (the nation of Israel) to another group of people (the Church). Lightfoot has rightly observed, “Even a human covenant duly confirmed is held sacred and inviolable. It cannot be set aside, it cannot be clogged with new conditions. Much more then a divine covenant”. ^[2] Even if the Abrahamic and New Covenants were conditional, which they were not; and even if Israel failed to meet the criteria of those covenants, which they did not; it could only result in Israel losing the benefits promised – it still would not be legal for Israel to be substituted as beneficiary. Under those circumstances, the Lord might terminate the covenant with Israel and make a new covenant with believers in this later dispensation, but He cannot rewrite the covenant He made with Israel. Not only would it not be right, but it would also suggest that the Lord was dealing with an event that he did not foresee. No, His foreknowledge is perfect and every detail of the covenants reveals His will for Hebrew nation. Not only did He make at least three unconditional covenants with Israel, but at no point did He make them temporary.

More next time

---

[1] Rom.11.17 ff

^[2]J.B.Lightfoot. St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London: Macmillan and co. 1874