Wednesday, July 30, 2008

From Dispensational to Covenantal Part IV

Overview:
Much ink has been spilt in an effort to draw parallels between the son of a Jewish carpenter born in the first century named Yeshua, and the corporate history of the people called Jews. Because these parallels, and bold re-interpretations of Old Testament passages by the New Testament writers, can be seen everywhere, and because so many have committed these things to writing, I'll only highlight a few of the more prominent passages which re-interpret, and draw parallels between, the Jewish Messiah and the history of the Jewish people themselves, and what it all means.

In my previous blog I argued how from the very first usage of the term Israel down through the first century there was a duality of sorts--a physical or fleshly Israel, and a spiritual Israel--so that we should now be able to nod with approval when Jesus utters the exclusive phrase "behold, a true Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit" and with the Apostle Paul when he states (inclusively) that after the time of the Gentiles is complete, "then all Israel will be saved".

But some would say that we have leaped too far in a desperate attempt to make Old Testament Israel synonymous with the New Testament Church. They say that, like the evolutionist who is desperate to prove his theory by ignoring it's missing links, we too have ignored our "missing link". I would argue that our so-called "missing" link is not missing at all, but rather it (or he) is with all obviousness the most central link in all of scripture! So central is our link that the Western world have divided history itself at the coming of our link (Before Christ, Anno Domini or 1 BC, AD 1), the link that separates our scriptures between Old and New, and yet paradoxically binds them together so intimately, so interweavingly that they cannot be separated, in an attempt to draw out of God two separate plans in history, without doing irreconcilable damage to the unity of it's message--that salvation and the people of God always has been, is, and always will be by faith. And that by faith these covenant people of God live righteously as Yahweh said to Habakkuk, the "righteous shall live by his faith" (Habakkuk 2:4, cf. Hebrews 11).

The Missing Link: Jesus is Israel!
Many authors have noted how that the Jews understood the coming Messiah, the heir to the throne of David, to be, like David before him, Israel's representative to Yahweh. So the Messiah, the King of Israel, would embody all that Israel was and is - both it's accomplishments and it's sins - that if Israel was the son of God corporately then the Messiah would be the Son of God, if Israel was God's vine, the Messiah would be the true Vine, if Israel would be God's elect then the Messiah would stand in as God's Elect One. And so where Israel had failed (from the moment the Lord brought them out of Egypt to their final Exile where they remain still), the Messiah succeeded, and yet paradoxically he also took the consequences of their failure on himself, and with it the sins of the world! (How this last point is accomplished will be discussed when I answer my own question posed in a blog last month (June) :Why the Law as a Covenant Charter?)

When we approach the New Testament we encounter immediately a writer with an agenda (are there any who write without an agenda?)! When we crack open the New Testament the first letter we come across, the Gospel of Matthew, was decisively written as the Good News for the Jew (it was the only N.T. book not originally written in Greek, Matthew was written first in Hebrew [rather Aramaic, the language of first century Jews] and then translated into Greek, presumably by Matthew himself). His intention was to show that the Messiah has finally arrived, and with him the long awaited Kingdom of God (the idea that the Kingdom of God came and left with Jesus has no biblical support)! The Immanuel is manifest, "God with us", the purpose of the Covenants have finally found their fulfillment in the Elect One, the One who is Truth, the true Israelite "indeed in whom there is no deceit".

Christopher Wright, for example, easily indulges himself for an entire chapter on Jesus' genealogy in the beginning of Matthew's Gospel, showing through it that Jesus was Israel's Messiah (Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament). And many other writers have done the same, some using wider brushes (eg. Wohlberg, End Times Delusions; Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code), while others giving new definition to the phrase "in depth bible study" through their academically weighty books (eg. N.T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant).

Matthew, or rather Levi probably himself from the tribe of Levi, the tax collector is very methodical in his calculated approach to Jesus in his Gospel. He seems to go out of his way, and if we are to take both Paul and Peter seriously he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to go out of his way, to draw a parallel between Jesus and the history of Israel:

OT: a Joseph had dreams and brought Israel into Egypt (Gen 37, 39)
NT: another Joseph had dreams and led Jesus into Egypt (Matt. 2)

OT: Israel called out of Egypt - God called Israel his son (Ex 4:22)
NT: Jesus called out of Egypt - Called his Son (Matt 2)

OT: After Egypt the Israelites were baptised in the Sea of Reed (or Red Sea)
NT: After Egypt Jesus is baptised in the River Jordan (Matt 3, cf. 1 Cor. 10:2)

OT: After the Israelites were baptised they spent 40 years in the wilderness
NT: After Jesus was baptised in spent 40 days in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-2)

OT: The Israelites seemed to fail miserably in the wilderness (via complaining and lack of faith)
NT: Jesus, when tempted by the Devil quoted from Deuteronomy, the very book that many scholars believe was given to the Israelites in the wilderness (cf. Matt 4)

If this motif in Matthew's Gospel is not explicit enough for some then consider this direct reinterpretation of an Old Testament verse in light of Jesus by Levi and inspired by the Holy Spirit: Joseph took Mary and baby Jesus into Egypt until Herod died so that what the Lord said through the prophet would be fulfilled: "Out of Egypt I called my Son". Matthew was quoting Hosea 11:1, except that the original prophecy did not seem to apply to the Messiah, but to the nation of Israel: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son". So here God prophesied, to paraphrase, 'Out of Egypt I called my Son, Israel', then God fulfilled that prophecy explicitly, 'Out of Egypt I called my Son, Jesus'". Jesus represents Israel, and in some sense Jesus is Israel!

So far I have shown using only the first four chapters of the first book in the New Testament to show how Jesus the Messiah is Israel's representative, Jesus is Israel succeeding where Israel failed, and himself becoming the second Adam (not yet proven, but easily shown in Paul's writings). but I could continue through the rest of the New Testament and talk about how Israel was to be God's answer to the fall and curse by being a new creation, how Jesus is the New Creation, the first fruits of a New thing as evidenced by His resurrection, I could go on and quote countless passages, not as 'proof texts' as so many are accustomed to doing to defend a view, but as a single coherent motif embedded, but not hidden, within the text of the New Testament and seen everywhere, from Christ being the 'first fruits', and a 'new creation' and the 'second Adam' to those who are 'in Christ' paralleling those who were 'in Jacob' (i.e. Israel).

Conclusion: We began by taking inventory of the fact that there are and always have been two Israel's, one of the flesh (in which they should not to take confidence) and those who are of the spirit (i.e. by faith), and that it is the latter, not the former, that are true Israel. Now that we've furthered our study we've seen that Israel, God's solution to the problem of the fall, have themselves become part of the problem (see Romans 2) - and so a Messiah, a true Israelite, a new Creation, a perfect human, a second Adam was needed. And so in the Messiah we find God's answer to the Fall - recreated, a new Human, a true prince with God (i.e. Israel).

But how, if at all, does this reinterpretation of Israel found in the Messiah effect the Christian from the resurrection to the present. That's the subject of the next blog.

Until then continue to pray "thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" - amen.

Derek

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

From Dispensational to Covenantal Part III

Investigating Israel:

In my previous blog I described a little bit of my personal theological journey, that of what initially compelled me to reconsider the eyes through which I viewed God's Word. In realizing that it may have been a little too presumptuous to read "all Israel will be saved", apart from it's context, to mean so simplistically that all national ethical Israel will be saved.

I decided that before I toss around any more accusations toward God, regarding his mishandling of the human race, that it would probably prove prudent to investigate this idea of Israel, reflecting of course on the cryptic statement that 'not all Israel are Israel'.

The Obvious Israel:

The most obvious factor pertaining to the idea of 'Israel' in the bible is that Israel was, in fact, a national ethnic group! Some historians dispute the origins of the Nation of Israel--was she birthed out of slavery from the Egyptians or did she simply emerge as the dominant group already living in Canaan during ancient times--but from a biblical perspective (in which our discussion is based), the Nation of Israel was, in fact, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and of course, Jacob who took on himself the name Israel.

So his children, the children of Jacob (i.e. Israel), and those also who belong to his tribe, quite naturally became known as "the children of Israel". This is the way the earliest nations were often named--the Amalakites where known as the children of Amalak for example--and so from a physical and historical standpoint, Israel must first be recognized as a national entity.

The biblical narrative tells us how God called Abraham from out of Mesopotamia and promised to give his descendants the land of Canaan as an inheritance. The promise was transferred to Abraham's son Isaac (not his older son Ishmael) and to Isaac's son Jacob (not his older son Esau). The descendants of Jacob, and those who belonged to his tribe but were not blood relatives, took refuge in the land of Egypt to escape a terrible famine in the Middle East. As time passed the Egyptians, for fear of the population growing of the children of Israel, enslaved them. Then, so the narrative tells us, God called Moses to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt in what became known triumphantly as the Exodus.

The children of Israel entered Egypt as a relatively small tribe, but they left Egypt (some four hundred years later) as the "Nation of Israel" as though a nation can be birthed in a single day!

It would be fool hearty to ignore this biblically obvious factor and I would dare not do such a thing. Israel was, no question about it, a physical nation with a divine providential purpose guiding it's very existence. That God called Israel out of Egypt and worked with her, through her and for her as a corporate body is, once again, beyond any doubt.

The question that the reflective Christian must ask however is: To what end? Why did God birth and guide this single nation, calling her apart from the rest of the nations of the earth? It simply won't do to say that "He did it and that's that", then jump to the conclusion that "all Israel will be saved"? For this reluctance to respect and over simplify the often complex and multi-layered subjects of the bible leads us right back to the arbitrary and unjust God we met in my previous blog.

So to this question, to what end did God call apart national Israel? we will return, but first let us consider some other ways by which we may understand this "idea" of Israel.

The Other Israel:

We should begin our discussion of "the Other Israel" by acknowledging the fact that the New Testament is, and should be viewed as, the revelation and fulfillment of those things spoken of in the Old Testament. It is in this way that the author of the book of Hebrews can say that Moses esteemed the riches of Christ above the riches of Egypt, and in this way that the author of Acts can refer to Israel as the Church (ekklesia) which wondered in the wilderness before entering the promise land. We can also see this cross-over in reverse when Paul speaks of the Galatians as the "Israel of God" referring to those who are circumcised of the heart and not just of the flesh, or when God tells Habakkuk, in very strong New Covenant terminology, that "the righteous shall live by faith".

There is one more thought which I believe must be kept in mind whenever a study on biblical matters dives beyond the obvious: God is Spirit, his Words are spiritual; and as such we also must be spiritual. True worshippers worship God in spirit and in truth the Word says. It also says that we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds and that the carnal (and dare I say the fleshly and/or baby Christian) mind cannot understand the truths of God (c.f. Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 2:13-3:3).

Spiritual Israel and the Point of God's Plan:

When the word "Israel" first appears in scripture it is given to Jacob after his encounter and struggle with the Angel of the Lord. The change is significant; Jacob means deceiver, and even a cursory glance at his life reveals how his name simply reflected his character. Israel on the other hand means "prince with God" or "one who rules with God" (think back to the garden with Adam as God's co-regent). Jacob was to no longer be a deceiver (ultimately reflected as a child of the father of lies, i.e. the devil, so Jesus says), but he was to take on the role originally intended for Adam, the role humans were to fill as rulers over this earth. In giving Jacob the name Israel God was in process of recreating, and since Israel was directly created by God, the scriptures could refer to Israel as the "son of God" and as his "firstborn" (c.f. Exodus 4:22). So immediately within it's first usage we see two Israel's, one of the flesh (Jacob the deceiver) and one who is a son of God (Israel a prince with God).

In the New Testament we see this idea of two Israelites in flying bright colors; one Israel of the flesh (i.e. Jacob or deceiver) and one Israel of God (i.e. a true Israelite). The leaders of Israel in the days of Jesus believed the privileges (and prophecies) of Abraham were given to them simply because of their national identity and ethnic lineage -- Jesus corrects this assumption (the Dispensationalist would do good to note this fact as I did). Jesus explains (rather unapologically) that their true father is the devil because they do as he does, and not as Abraham did. The devil is the father of lies, and they chose to believe the lie rather then accept the truth found in Christ (John 8:31-47). The antithesis of this is found in Nathanael's surprisingly pleasant encounter with his Messiah. Jesus takes one look at Nathanael, and utters these profound and revealing words about the young disciple to be, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!". (Apparently Nathanael was ripe and ready for the Messiah, for he responds with "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" [John 1:47-49].) Notice those words, "a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit" as opposed to an Israelite of the flesh, who evidently is not necessarily a true Israelite! Again, a distinction is made between one who is an ethnic descendant of Abraham and one who is a true prince with God, a true Israelite. Notice the strong and undeniably spiritual meaning in the text that cannot and must not be overlooked. The point of God calling Israel apart as a holy people, was not to exclusively redeem an ethnic group, resulting in two separate plans and purposes of God within human history. The purpose (as we shall see) is much greater then this erroneous and unspiritual reading of God's Word found in Dispensationalism.

So what about Israel then, has she lost her place in the plan and purposes of God? Well the Apostle Paul anticipated this question and came prepared with an answer. This idea of two Israel's does not (by no means!) exclude an Israelite from God's purpose and plan of Redemption in history, for Paul himself was an Israelite in the strictest of senses (Romans 11:1). Yet salvation is not found in the blood-line or lineage of Abraham, salvation is found in the faith-line or lineage of faith in Israel's Messiah; and this door is open to any Israelite who should be willing to accept it. Paul even hopes and pleads with his brothers in the flesh (ethnic Israelites), that they will see the influx of Gentile converts and be provoked to jealousy, so that they too may be saved! But make no mistake about it, salvation is found in the Messiah alone, and not in any national ethnic identity! Paul also, in this same context, reveals the earth shattering fact that even in ancient times there were two Israel's, one of the flesh who served baal, and one of faith who served Yahawa -- only a remnant of true Israelites existed within Israel (c.f Romans 9:6) during the days of Elijah, the same was evidently true of Paul's day as well (for this entire paragraph see Romans 11).

In conclusion then, there are and always have been, two distinct Israel's, one of the lineage of the flesh, and one of the lineage of faith (Romans 2:28-29). True descendants of Abraham are those of faith (Galatians 3:6-7), not those of the flesh, for these are children of the devil (so Jesus says). The distinction of the lineage of faith and the lineage of the flesh can be seen in the symbolic representatives of Isaac and Ishmael (so Paul says). Isaac represents those who are of faith, while Ishmael represents those who are also of Abraham by are not of faith (Galatians 4:22-31).

In my next blog I want to take a closer look at the New Testament, particularly in reference to how true spiritual Israel relates to the Jewish Messiah and his Church.

Till then, hold fast to the hope, blessings and promises we have in the Messiah.

In Him,
Derek
http://www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com/

Thursday, July 3, 2008

From Dispensational to Covenantal Part II

It's difficult to pin point the exact time and place my journey away from a dispensational worldview began. What I can say for sure is the subject which first began to cause my head to turn - I became disillusioned with end times as it was taught and publicised by the likes if Thomas Ice, John Walvoord, and especially Tim Lahey, Grant Jeffrey, Hal Lindsay and Jack Van Impe, who all seem to exploit the Christians desire to see Christ's return in order to make a buck. The phrase: "My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves!" comes to mind.

However, my purpose here is not to build a case against a particular end times view, though a certain amount of polemics against the dispensational perspective is inevitable. Let me just state some highlights that began to make me question my dispensationalism:

Two Separate people and plans of salvation:

I was told that in the Old Testament salvation was for the Jews alone (ethnically speaking), but that because the Jews rejected Christ God rejected them, and thus salvation was now made available to the Gentiles (implying quite strongly that salvation was not available to the Gentiles in the Old Testament except on rear occasions). However, due to unfulfilled prophecy in the Old Testament pertaining to ethnic national Israel, God will one day turn his attention back to his chosen people in Abraham, physically speaking, This will occur when the time of the Gentiles is complete.

At that time things will revert back to the way God operated on the Old Testament dispensation of Law. The Temple of Solomon is to be rebuilt and the sacrificial system is to continue; the purpose of this reversion is so that God may fulfill unfulfilled prophecy concerning Israel's Messiah, Jerusalem, the promise land and the Coming Kingdom. All of this boiled down, as I understood it, in the fact that one day "all Israel will be saved" - thus keeping God's promise to Abraham.

For me this last point raised some serious questions regarding the doctrine of soteriology: namely, how are we to understand God's saving of "all Israel"? Should we understand this to refer to all the ethnic Israelites living at the time of Christ's return, or to all ethnic Israelites who ever lived? And what exactly is this salvation process going to look like? To 'save all Israel' is God going to force the Israelites accept their Messiah against their will or is God going to simply bestow unmerited favor in granting them salvation despite their rejection of the Messiah and failure to keep the Covenant?

This in turn raises questions about how salvation 'worked' in the Old Testament. If, when the dispensation of grace and the age of the Gentiles is complete (along with the removal of the Holy Spirit I am told), the dispensation of Law in the Old Testament with it's sacrificial systems is reestablished, then perhaps in understanding how the ancient Israelites were saved we will answer the question of how they will be saved in the consummation of that dispensation to come? Were the Old Testament Israelites 'saved' by keeping the Law as the Old 1909 Scofield bible said? Or were they 'saved' through their sacrificial systems or by their circumcision or by some other means (perhaps simply because of their genes)?

As I often verbalized these questions as they come to me, the answers were (to me) quite unsatisfying. The answer most common was to accept that fact the bible explicitly said that "all Israel will be saved", therefore everything else is deduced from this fact:

Someone once told me that every Israelite in the Old Testament (whether they kept the Covenant or not) were kept in 'paradise' until Christ could come and set them free after the crucifixion. He then concluded that 'paradise' has been 'filling up' again with Jews ever since, and they will again be paraded out of there when the Messiah comes to set up his Kingdom. And that is how 'all Israel will be saved' he told me. Who cares whether or not they accept the Messiah! Who cares how they live, if they obey the Law, if they sacrifice animals, if they are circumcised, etc. etc.! All that matters is that they will be saved - as the bible said.

My Beef With God!

Growing up with a dispensational worldview, these questions were not so much directed against dispensationalism as they were directed at God. You must remember that I had no idea that dispensationalism was a particular theological systematic perspective; for me this view (which I did not know was called 'dispensationalism') was simply the view! There was no other view, no other way of approaching the bible. The fact that there were two separate 'elect' people of God, the natural election being ethnic Israel and the spiritual election being the Christian Church, seemed quite evident to me. The bible itself splits this two elect people apart in the form of the 'Old' and the 'New' Testaments, and I remembered a verse in the bible that said 'Law' came through Moses while 'Grace' came through Jesus.

So my 'beef' wasn't with dispensationalism as a system (I accepted the system as being true), my beef was with God!

See, how I understood it, the God that I thought was no respecter of persons turns out is in fact a respecter of persons. Selecting Israel for eternal election as an ethnic racial group, not requiring anything from them, saving them unquestionably while condemning the rest of humanity to hell until the Christ would appear. The God I thought was unbias turns out to be bias; the God I thought was 'just', turns out to be unjust in his dealings with humanity as a whole; the God I thought to be a God of purpose turns out to be a God of arbitrariness, as he arbitrarily selects one ethnic group to eternal salvation while condemning the rest. This God is racist in reverse, instead of hating one ethnic group, he favors only one and sends the rest away as uncircumcised infidels.

For me, this dilemma was no paradox, it was no contradiction, it simply seemed unjust.

The Old Testament was nearly altogether irrelevant. The bible as the oracles of God was viewed in pieces and broken up. Sure we can garnish life principles from the stories in the Old Testament, but as a whole we are to understand the Old Testament as pertaining specifically to the elect of Israel which has no bearing on the Christian Church. What is the point of the bible as whole? Or rather how can we even mention the bible as being 'whole' in the first place? Nearly everything in the Old Testament, or more broadly speaking, everything in the history of mankind from creation to Christ, were the arbitrary workings of an arbitrary God.

All of a sudden everything at this point seemed so shallow to me. As a person who loves history it was extremely disappointing to discover that the great majority of history had no point at all.

A Turn in the Tide

When it happened I don't remember exactly, but quite frankly one day while questioning this doctrine that "all Israel will be saved" I received a humbling yet sharp realization. The kind of realization that happens too few and far between and has the effect of rocking ones world and altering ones entire perspective, tearing down his presuppositions, and smashing his worldview to pieces.

I was that 'one', I was lying in pieces on the floor of my life, I was humbled into repentance over the 'beefs and questions' I accused my God of. For it wasn't God who was unjust in his dealings with mankind, it was my misreading, my misconceived worldview, my erroneous approach to God's oracles that were dreadfully flawed... and I never had a happier realization in my life.

I had discovered that everyone always misquoted Romans 11:26, that one day "all Israel will be saved". Why did they always hang their theological hats on this verse while ignoring it's context?

Without cutting those words from the pages of the bible, the text seems to be mysterious, less clear then everyone always made it out to be. Putting those words back into the biblical context where they are supposed to be, it reads:

"And in this way all Israel will be saved..."!

In what way will all Israel be saved? Well read back a little further and putting it all together you'll discover that "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved". This realization caused me to ponder the fact that this verse was not as naively explicit as I was led to believe.

I also discovered within the overall context of Romans 9-11 a verse in 9:6 which reads:

"not all Israel are Israel"! What does this mean? This could be an earth shattering verse!

While Romans 11:26 was highly centralized and abused, Romans 9:6 remained highly marginalized and ignored.

So it was Romans 11:25-26 in context and taken in conjunction with Romans 9:6 that blew my mind into a crashing humility of realizing I was wrong. That there was something deeper and more mysterious to this idea called "Israel" then I was allowing for. Consequentially I decided it best to investigate into this whole matter before I tossed any more accusations towards God. Could it be that it was not God who was being unjust, but my own system, my approach to God oracles, my own fallibile approach to God's Word that needed to be examined, abandoned and my worldview radically altered, this erroneous thing called dispensationalism?

"Not all Israel are Israel" but when the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel will be saved".

How are we to understand this idea called Israel?

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Followers