The Messiah and His Miracles

Prologue

Why did the Sanhedrin, the religious rulers of Israel, reject the Messianic claim of Jesus of Nazareth?  Did He not have the right credentials?  Did He not perform the correct, authenticating miracles? Did they consider Him an impostor? Or were there other political expediencies dictating their actions? Was their decision a proper, considered judgement, or were they already predisposed to reject the claim of any individual who wished to change the status quo? This book examines the New Testament record and scrutinises the conflict between Jesus of Nazareth and the Sanhedrin, since the consequences of that decision, by a relatively small group of Jewish leaders, has affected all humankind for nearly two millennia. 

At the heart of the conflict was the matter of the miracles of the Messiah.  They will be set in the context of the Jewish culture of the day, and their significance weighed.

---

New Book from Bryan W. Sheldon

Torah Observance in the Age of Grace

This book seeks to answer the question: ‘what is the place of the Mosaic Covenant (often referred to as ‘the law of Moses’) in the age of the New Covenant?’

There are many that recognize the importance of the ritual of Israel and the contribution it made to the education of the Hebrew nation - how it was designed to prepare them for the coming of their Messiah. His coming should have changed everything for them. Alas they rejected their Messiah and the whole situation became more complicated.

With the loss of the Temple, the ritual of Israel ceased. Nevertheless, many of the Hebrew nation still try to celebrate the feasts and abide by the Torah even though the instruments of Law have disappeared. Some among the Christian Messianic community and some Gentile believers who treasure the Jewishness of Christianity are also drawn to the old rituals. All recognize they cannot perform them as they should – nevertheless they seek to celebrate the Passover once a year and build booths for the festival of Tabernacles. In the light of Scripture how is this to be viewed? This enquiry, of course, is not whether Jews should abandon their culture, just that, should the rituals prescribed in the Torah still be practiced.

It is not as if this question is not Scriptural: It was faced head on by Paul, an apostle and theologian, who was trained in the Rabbinic schools as well as being divinely instructed. The subject was also debated at length in the early Church – indeed we have the result of their deliberations recorded for us. In addition, we have a letter (Hebrews) which is addressed directly to Jewish Christians with clear advice as to the place of Mosaic ritual in this day of grace. Moreover, Paul, the Jerusalem Council and the writer to the Hebrew believers dealt with the subject while the Temple was still standing, and so did not have the additional difficulties that would be faced by those who wish to celebrate the Feasts today.

What we are suggesting is that, as always, the Bible can give us the answer.

The questions raised could be summarized thus:

    1.              Do you need to be a Jew to become a Christian?

    2.              If you are a Christian how do you relate to the law of Moses?

    3.              Is obedience to the law of Moses still required of members of the Jewish race?

Drawing on the teaching provided by that part of the Bible called ‘The New Covenant’ the author offers a Biblical response to these questions.

This book is available from Amazon, either in paperback or on Kindle.

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

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the purposes of God

We continue our rebuttal of replacement theology.

Another text, which supercessionists[1] consider is a help to their case is 1 Peter 2.9,10, because Peter applies a cluster of terms to the Church which had previously been applied to Israel. But if the case for supercessionism has not been proved by other texts, this one on it own cannot do it. The first question that should be asked is: ‘who was Peter writing to?’ when he said, ‘you are a chosen race …’. He himself tells us – they are “sojourners of the dispersion” (Gk. parepidemois diasporas)(1.Pet.1.1) Wuest says, “the word ‘scattered’ is from ‘diasporas’ (dispersion) and is used in John 7.35 and James 1.1, in both places referring to those Jews who were living outside of Palestine.  Peter uses it in the same way.  The recipients of this letter were Christian Jews.”[2] That Peter is writing to the Jews of the dispersion should be expected since he is the apostle to the Jews. That He is writing to Jewish Christians is borne out by internal evidence also since he alludes to the T’nach on 29 occasions. In respect of the text itself, ‘race’ and ‘nation’ cannot apply to the Church but can apply to Israel. The dictionary definition of ‘nation’ is “a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory”.^[3] Israel fits that description exactly, whereas the Church cannot. Indeed, there are several other texts that use the word ‘nation’ to describe Israel, but there are none that clearly use the word ‘nation’ to describe the Church. And even if we allow that the text refers to the Church, all that can be maintained is that there is continuity in God’s dealing with humanity. That those He takes as His own people, Israel first and then the Church, are constituted in a similar fashion. Both are chosen, are priests, are holy, and belong to God. Parallelism does not indicate replacement; similarity does not prove identity.

Philippians.3.3 contains a phrase that is also used to support the replacement point of view: “for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh”. But what Paul is doing here is countering the false teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation. “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision”. (3.2) The Old Testament rite of physical circumcision was not only a sign of covenant relationship, but it was also intended to be related to spiritual circumcision of the heart.[4] (cf. Deut. 30:6). Writing to Gentiles, Paul wants them to understand that they do not need to be physically circumcised to come into a relationship with God. They come under a covenant relationship if they had no confidence in the flesh and “worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus”. (Phil.3.3) He is not redefining the definitions of Church and Israel.  He was stating that those who had exercised faith in Christ did not need to be physically circumcised as the Jewish party contended. Salvation is based on Christ’s righteousness not on the ‘flesh’. To rephrase it, no-one needs to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But what about those texts which speak of Christians as the ‘sons of Abraham’? Does this mean they have been constituted Jews? For example, “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham”. (Gal.3.7) See also Gal.3.29 and Rom.4.11. Replacement theologians argue that Gentile association with Abraham must mean that Gentile believers are a part of a new spiritual Israel. The logic is based on the assumption that being a son of Abraham automatically makes one a Jew. But this is not so. The argument of Scripture is that Abraham was a believer before he was circumcised. That is why believers generally are Abraham’s descendents and heirs according to promise.[1]  Vlach argues that “replacement theologians are too restrictive in their definition of what makes one a “son” or “seed” of Abraham.  A Gentile believer can be a “son” or a “seed” of Abraham by faith without becoming a Jew”.[2] It would be different if the New Testament referred to the saints as the children or ‘seed’ of Jacob, or to use an Old Testament phrase, ‘children of Israel’ but it does not. The blessing that Gentiles enjoy comes from that element of the Abrahamic Covenant that prophesies and promises that in Abraham shall all the families of the earth be blessed, or more particularly, as Paul sees it, “the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” (Gal. 3:8) There is no hint here that the blessing comes upon Gentiles as a result of the promise made to Abraham that he would become a great nation. This shows that Gentiles can be ‘sons of Abraham’ and related to the Abrahamic covenant without becoming spiritual Jews. You do not have to become a Jew to be saved, and you do not become a Jew, even a spiritual Jew, once you have been saved.

 

In Eph.2.11-19 the work of Christ is described as including a unity between Jew and Gentile.  He has made “both groups into one” (2.14); He made “the two into one new man” (2.15) and He reconciled “both in one body” (2.16) Does this mean that the Gentiles have been incorporated into a new, redefined Israel. This text does not refer to the Gentiles being incorporated into a redefined Israel but rather Jewish believers and Gentile believers are brought together into a new entity, a new creation, “one new man” – the Church. That Jewish believers have been brought into the Church does not erase God’s purposes for ethnic Israel.

---

[1] Gal.3.29 (see also Rom. 4.8-18)

[2] Michael J. Vlach. ‘Has The Church Replaced Israel In God’s Plan?’ Conservative Theological Journal Vol.4 (April 2000)

---

[1] Those that hold to the doctrine of replacement theology

[2] Wuest’s studies in the Greek New Testament. Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids

^[3]Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[4] Deut.30.6

cf. confer, compare

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the Purposes of God?

In my view - No! We continue with my reasons why we should reject the replacement view.

 

      Another verse that is quoted to support the replacement view is Romans 9.6 “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel”.  By this, it is suggested that in this reference the term Israel encompasses Gentile believers as well as Jewish believers. But this section of Romans (chapters 9 through 11) is dealing with ethnic Israel, and this verse surely must be interpreted similarly. This reference, Romans 9.6, is bracketed between two expressions of ethnic Israel. In verses 3 to 5 Paul expresses his concern regarding his Jewish brothers and sisters. “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen”. Then the other side of verse 6 i.e. verses 7 to 9 there is another reference to ethnic Israel, that is, the children of Abraham through Sarah. “Nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.’” (Rom. 9:7-9) There is no indication that Paul is introducing a different definition of Israel between these two statements.

A more satisfying explanation of the teaching contained in the text “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” is that the believing remnant within the nation are identified as ‘Israel’ within ‘Israel’. That ‘Israel’ is made up of believing and unbelieving Jews. This would certainly be the understanding of the concept of ‘Jew’ in Romans 2.28,29, another verse that is used to support the view that God has replaced Israel with the Church. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” (Rom. 2:28,29) What this teaches is that a real Jew is one who is a faithful, believing child of Abraham, in contrast to someone who simply relies on having been born of Jewish parents. Again, it is dealing with the difference between believing and non-believing Jews, and is not introducing the concept of Gentiles being ‘spiritual Jews’. Paul, in this section, is addressing that old chestnut that the Jews invariably raised, “We are Abraham’s descendants” (John 8:33).  Their doctrine is given a voice in the Mishnah where it says, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come”.[1] This doctrine declares that if you are a Jew you are safe. “All Israelites” have a share in the world to come. It is true that the Mishnah does subsequently make some exceptions to the “all Israelites” but they are only those who were notoriously wicked, like Ahab. Paul is arguing that all Israelites will NOT have a share in the world to come. He is following the line of reasoning that had been expressed by Jesus,[2] and John the Baptist.[3]  The Messiah, the Fore-runner and the Apostle to the Gentiles would all tell you, outward observance is not enough; circumcision must be, “of the heart”, (Rom.2.29) that is the purpose of these verses. The distinction that Paul makes here is between Jews who trust in externals and Jews who have faith. He is not widening the concept of ‘Jew’ to include Gentiles. William MacDonald wrote: “A real Jew is the one who is not only a descendant of Abraham but who also manifests a godly life. This passage does not teach that all believers are Jews, or that the Church is the Israel of God. Paul is talking about those who are born of Jewish parentage and is insisting that the mere fact of birth and the ordinance of circumcision are not enough. There must also be inward reality”. Supporters of replacement theology must look elsewhere for firm ground to build on.

More Next Time

---

[1] Mishnah: Sanhedrin 10.1.A

[2] John 8.33 ff

[3] Luke 3.8