Trying to find that Biblical middle ground between Zionism and Supercessionism
As I hinted in my last note on this all-but-abandoned space, the reason I haven’t been posting lately is because most anything I’d want to talk about is really up in the air right now. This isn’t just limited to that old justification series either. There are quite a few things shifting around in my eschatology; categories that I used to think were really important have diminished while the underlying principles have become all the more exalted, and I feel that over all I’m becoming much more balanced. It’s still too early to report most of my musings, however, which is why this all sounds so terribly vague.
But I really hate to see this blog so desolate, and there is something that I’d like to throw out here, something I’ve been wrestling over for a while. This is a topic which often provokes a lot of emotion and heated debate, and understandably so, because the corridors of church history are riddled with the horrendous consequences of wrong answers. But perhaps the consequences of those wrong answers have themselves induced a reactionary posture on the other side of the fence. Perhaps the Biblical answer isn’t truly represented in either of the two extremes. Whatever the truth is, I hope that I can throw out my tentative thoughts and we can get some productive dialog going in a humble spirit. I invite anyone who has wrestled over this to contribute.
For those who haven’t already guessed, I want to talk about Israel and the Church. Specifically, as the title says, I want to see if we can arrive at a happy middle ground between the extremes of Zionism and Supercessionism (aka, replacement theology), because it’s pretty clear to me that neither of those polarizing schemes lead to the convictions which the authors of the New Testament carried. The following is my current take. It seems to make the most sense to me, but of course it’s open to revision.
Often times as Premillennialists we think (or at least I know I used to think), that if we maintain a Hebraic understanding of the kingdom then we must believe in a distinct eschatological calling and promise for ethnic Israel. Barry E. Horner belabors this point in his Future Israel, pointing the finger at Reformed folk and claiming that giving the title of “Israel” to Gentile believers while denying the covenantal use of that same term from unsaved Jews is unavoidably rooted in a Greek Neo-Platonic worldview and not in the thinking of the New Testament authors. But I think that N.T. Wright makes an excellent point and shows that this accusation is unfounded.
Neither the recognition that Paul’s main target was paganism, and the Caesar-cult in particular, nor the equal recognition that he remained a thoroughly Jewish thinker, should blind us for a moment to the fact that Paul still expressed a thorough critique of non-messianic Judaism. Paul remains at this point on the map of second-temple Judaism: believing that God had acted to remodel the covenant people necessarily entailed believing that those who refused to join this remodeled people were missing out on God’s eschatological purpose. As post-holocaust thinkers we will of course be careful how we say all this. As historians of the first century, we will recognise that it must be said. As Pauline theologians we will recognize that it contains no shadow, no hint, of anything that can be called anti-Judaism, still less anti-semitism.
There’s a big difference between replacement theology and remnant theology, and often times the latter is confused with the former. There wasn’t a single sect within first century Judaism that wouldn’t have been in full agreement with Paul that (a) not all ethnic Israel was truly the “Israel” to which God would fulfill his promises, and that (b) when God renewed the covenant He would throw open its doors to let the Gentiles in. Their disagreement would have arisen over (a) what exactly makes one a member of the true Israel and (b) the means through which God would renew the covenant.
While they would have maintained (to varying degrees of course, according to the standards of each respective sect) that their strict adherence to the civil law would produce righteousness within the nation, thus ushering in the messianic age where God would renew the covenant with them, Paul and the rest of the early church declared, in contrast, that that new age had already dawned, not through their corporate adherence to the law (for Paul insists that this would have been impossible [Gal 3:21; Rom 3:20]), but through the faithfulness of Jesus of Nazareth, who was “born under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law” (Gal 4:3-4). Jesus – the one whom they crucified and whom God raised from the dead – he is Israel’s Messiah, her representative, and it was stunningly through his death and resurrection that (in fulfillment of the Scriptures) God has renewed the covenant with his followers, opening up its membership to all the nations that they too might be saved and receive of the promises made to the fathers. This is what the early church believed, and there is nothing “supercessionist” about it.
It’s quite easy to pick out the anti-semitics like Luther and accuse the whole lot (from the patristics to the present) of holding to an inherently anti-Judaistic eschatology, but such an argument is hardly objective or Biblically based. There definitely still remains a remnant of that eschatology in many circles within the Reformed tradition, but titles like “replacement theology” and “supersessionism” have largely become straw-man caricatures that misframe the discussion when in fact relatively few NT scholars these days would personally wear that badge. For the most part the discussion has shifted, and there is usually much more nuance and balance to a Reformed take on Israel than the other guys usually portray in their ad hominem appeals to a post-holocaust pro-Israel sentiment.
Setting the various agendas to the side and reading the NT honestly, however, and we find that it’s abundantly clear about the fact that we Gentiles who were once strangers and aliens have now been grafted into Abraham’s family through Jesus, who is the perfect “Seed,” the “true Israel,” so that we too are God’s Israel, the Sons of God, heirs of the promise. To reject that is to outright ignore huge portions of the NT – not only bits of Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, but also Matthew, Hebrews, Revelation, etc. In telling Jesus’ story as the climax of Israel’s history, the NT writers proclaim that it was he who walked out Israel’s calling and that therefore the covenant has been reconstituted around him. That’s why all of those aspects of the law that were meant to keep Israel separate from other ethnicities (e.g., circumcision, dietary laws, etc) are no longer necessary – because the covenant is no longer ethnocentric and the calling of Israel to be the light of the world, the city on a hill, the ministers of God’s covenant faithfulness to the earth, is now the calling of everyone in Jesus, both Jew and Gentile alike (Gal 3; Eph 2).
Now, since the kingdom is no longer ethnocentric, but is instead Jesus-centric with the “middle wall of separation” broken down – making us Gentiles partakers of the “commonwealth of Israel,” fellow heirs of the “covenants of promise,” and thus nullifying the civil ordinances which were once meant to keep Israel separate from the Gentiles – then the OT promises made to Israel must now be understood, in light of what Jesus has done, to include saved Gentiles in every respect. This doesn’t mean that we now hold the OT with a different hermeneutic than the NT, rather it simply means that we must read the whole Bible for what it truly is: a story, a great moving narrative spanning across the ages, and as such we must read each chapter within the context of the whole, recognizing where we are at each point along the way.
Many today read the Bible in far too much of a Neo-Platonic “fortune cookie” manner, treating the 66 books as just a collection of timeless revelatory truths as if all communicated from one author at one time. It’s directly out of this thinking (as it was basically rehashed through the Enlightenment) that Dispensationalism emerged in the 19th century, treating eschatology as a big puzzle in which we simply grab all of the passages that have apocalyptic language and try to fit them into our timeline of the end-time events, without regard for their context and place within the grand covenantal narrative of history. If you do this, you will quickly find that there are things in the OT regarding the way God related to Israel that don’t quite line up with what He did through Jesus in the NT, and in pulling the testaments together you’ll inevitably have to compromise a plain sense reading of one or the other. In and of itself this reveals that something is amiss, that a good step back and a rethinking of some basic presuppositions is probably in order.
But I digress. Let’s get back to the discussion at hand.
Through Christ we have been brought into God’s family, a family which was once limited to one ethnicity but which has now opened up to include many, all on equal footing with the first, so that whatever promises pertain to the family corporately pertain to each and every individual as well. I don’t see how a distinction could be made between God’s calling to Gentile believers and His calling to Israel as a nation and people, because God’s calling to Israel as a nation and people is precisely that they would be the light of the world, and his promises of exaltation and prosperity are for that vocational purpose, that His name might be declared in all the earth, that His people would partner with Him in redeeming the earth (Isa 42; 49; Matt 5:14). And it was precisely this commission which Jesus gave to his followers after the resurrection (Matt 28:18-20). As the people of God, the new community of Christ, we are, as Revelation 1:6 says, a “kingdom of priests” – meaning that all who participate in the kingdom share in God’s great mediatory task of reconciling everything in heaven and on earth in Christ. That is the one calling of “Israel,” to Jew and Gentile alike, for that is the one purpose of the covenant (I say the to include every covenant, assuming one great overarching story in Scripture), spanning across the ages from the patriarchs to Christ to the new heavens and new earth.
This is obviously all very one sided and there is a lot more that needs to be said now that the box has been opened, but I think it’s as good a place to start as any. Taking my queue from Paul, this seems to be the route he takes in Romans before he moves into his “hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel” in chs. 9-11. It’s obvious that our eschatology really matters and has implications for how we relate to Israel in the present. But does it follow that for us to come out with a loving and prayerful attitude toward Israel like that which Paul exemplifies we must believe that they have a wholly distinct covenantal role to play in the future? Wouldn’t it bear the same fruit, and even greater fruit, to simply say that we should love and pray for unsaved Jews because YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, cares for them deeply, and that while they are His enemies, yet “they are beloved for the sake of the fathers” (Rom 11:28)?
In Christ,
Matt
We talked about this a little at Chic-fil-A, and I agree with you that it’s very easy to be reactionary in our theology, and that is what causes a lot of the division. I would disagree that using the term “replacement theology” is always setting up a straw man argument, because I regularly run into people who truly do believe that God has no plans whatsoever for ethnic Israel, and that the statement “All Israel shall be saved” has nothing to do with them.
But even so, I think it is wise not to react to that to the extreme and say that God’s plans for Israel will happen outside of Christ.
The truth is that God is truly “zealous for Zion” and “jealous for Jerusalem,” and that is why He sent His Son — that through Him all Israel will be saved when they say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”
davidgagne
Thursday, July 31, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“I extend the word Israel to all the people of God, according to this meaning, -When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first born in God’s family.
…as Jews are the firstborn, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled, especially in them: for that scripture calls all the people of God Israelites, it is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, who God had preferred to all other nations…God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation…God was not unmindful of the covenant which he had made with their fathers, and by which he testified that according to his eternal purpose he loved that nation: and this he confirms by this remarkable declaration, -that the grace of the divine calling cannot be made void.”
- John Calvin (Commentary on Romans)
Jim B.
Saturday, August 2, 2008 at 7:07 am
Yayy… new post. I’ll be sure to read it and send comments soon.
Washington
Monday, August 4, 2008 at 9:27 pm
An interesting example of the selective usage of Israel as the people of God is particularly found in 2 passages of scripture:
Psalm 22:3 – “But You are Holy, who inhabit the praises of Israel.”
Which is frequently translated within evangelical circles as “God inhabits the praises of His people.”
Hosea 8:3 – “Israel has rejected the good; The enemy will pursue him.”
I don’t hear this verse quoted often in evangelical circles as applying to ‘His people’.
What shall we say then, is the term ‘Israel’ strictly referring to Hebrews? Does God only inhabit the praises of the Hebrews? Or do the words of the prophets speak only to the body of Christ, ignoring the natural Israeli context in which they wre given, I speak as a man. Certainly not, the very pattern of the Lord is to precede the spiritual with the natural (1 Cor 15:46), which can be applied as a Biblical hermeneutic (within reason) to see the amazing ability of God to weave in several layers of relevancy in one statement of truth.
Hosea 8:3 was a prophecy given to the children of Israel making it clear that their persistent unfaithfulness has released the judgement of God so that their enemies will conduct military conquest upon their land. Yet this verse can also be superimposed to those in the covenant of faith as a lesson and warning – the rejection of the truth, Jesus the Word of God and the commandments we receive from Him, releases judgement upon our lives… perhaps in the form of demonic activity (Eph 4:27, 6:12).
I requires the wisdom of God to avoid extremes, widom that is found in the place of prayer (Eph 1:17-19, James 5-6).
drwasho
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Yes, my name changed from Washington to drwasho… as I may have a blog soon, after my thesis.
Good job Matt btw!
drwasho
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Strong point on the issue of an overly emotionally charged debate that often times clouds a clear sense truth. As for insight into the question at hand, that requires a more firm retelling of theological history. Jim b, though i respect your view, you cant simply throw a clavin quote out there and not discuss the huge influence the alexandrian school of thought had on the developement the traditional reformed view. (and why this is a problem because of how highly influenced by Neo-platonism and greek mystery cults along with proto-gnosticism it was. as matt already pointed out)
This may sound a bit strange at first but stick with me. Ultimately, the deciding factor between ones stance escatologically on Israel, will be determined by way we view YHWH’s primary means and goal of interaction with humanity. What i mean by this is, “How does God’s kingdom run/work?” As matt as already begun to address, one of the primary divisions between the different sects and schools of thought in the first century wasnt the ultimate outcome of history but the means by which its victory was attained. Now lets pose the question to each realm of the issue of Israel.
Zionism in its hyper dispensational stream will overtly delcare a distinction between the covenant fulfillment in the gentile world and that of ethnic lsrael. In which God, actually plays favorites with humanity based an arbitratry ethno-centric level. To be frank, that idea is not only completely biblically and intellectually bankrupt, but if examined honestly is morally repugnant. One that Jesus (the one in the gospels) would have never endoresed and never did. Infact we see him making a clear effort to support a radically advanced egalitarian worldview within his itinterant ministry. (Samaritan women, and Roman Centurian) This realm of thinking delcares a god that plays favorites, and ultimatley forces a deistic devine will upon his subjects without regard to the individual, problematic as well as unfounded within the person of Jesus.
On the other hand, supercessationism. creates a number of problems, first God doesnt seem to know what he’s doing, excuse the clumsy analogy but its as if God tried an experiment and it didnt work so he scrapped the idea altogether. Some deity?! leaving the hopes of centuries of faithful men and women in the historical-theological dust without regard. Doesnt quite sound like steadfast love and faithfulness that the central descriptions of the character of God throughout the OT and NT. the question that reamins is where is the truth?
Matt, its a good question and a good start. like with most things the answer lies (i believe) in the middle. Where reason and compassion meet in the person of Jesus we find the answer. Jesus honors the his own people for carrying the brunt of the promise for so many years, for there faithfulness. At the same time He re-creates the idea that is Israel, (the family of God) and offers one hope, one future, one poeple, one call, one salvation, one baptism, one faith. If all things truly are fulfilled in the God-Man, then mystery of the incarnation and its unity, becomes itself a model for the unity within the covenant, of a national and spiritual israel as being apart of the same body. let me know what you think.
Sam
Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I appreciated reading your perspective on this and look forward to more
austin roberts
Friday, August 8, 2008 at 7:04 am
Matt,
There are a few questions that I have been mulling over since hearing your thoughts on this in the coffee shop awhile back. First is how all the NT writers definitely use “Israelite” language to describe Gentiles in Christ (sons of God; chosen ones; etc), yet they all refrain from outrightly calling us “Israel”. To me, this is important, and not to be over looked.
Second is that Paul says in Romans (as you know better than I do) that it has never been salvation by being a descendant of Abraham, nor by observing ordinances, but by faith alone. Gentiles who worshiped the God of Abraham by faith, then, have always also been a light unto the world, yes? I’m having a hard time seeing the switch from strictly Jews to “spiritual” or “true” Jews being by Jesus “the faithful Israelite” dying, resurrecting, and ascending. Could you discuss this in more detail? Because it seems as if “spiritual” Israel has always been set apart…
Thirdly, I want to be cautious that we do not receive the blessings but relegate the curses to them.
Fourth and final thing (at the moment) is that God’s wisdom is rich and deep. The tree that Jesus hung upon took away the curse, yet there really is a tree in the New Jerusalem which takes away the curse of the nations. The Holy Spirit’s life flows from us like rivers of living water, but there really is a river of life flowing from the throne of the Lamb. What I mean by this is that perhaps Israel was *and is* set apart by God to be a kingdom of priests serving on earth, while still having “true Israel” as a kingdom of priests serving in heaven?
In other words, I’m not convinced that Israel should no longer separate themselves from the nations. Much love!
BMV
Ben Varner
Sunday, August 10, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Ben,
Great questions! I’ll give ‘em my best shot.
First: Are you sure that they don’t? Paul calls Gentile believers the true “Jew” according to the Spirit in Rom 2:29, and it seems like he includes them in the “Israel of God” in Gal 6:16. He also uses the synonym “the circumcision” to describe all who worship God in the Spirit in Phil 3:3. Less directly, but no less true for that, he includes Gentiles in the “children of promise” which constitute the true eschatological “Israel” in Rom 9:6-8 (cf., vv. 23-26).
Second: I think you’ve misunderstood me. The “switch” wasn’t that it was only about ethnic Israel and now it’s only about spiritual Israel. That would be dispensationalism. No, rather the switch was that prior to the Christ event membership within Israel was stipulated by adherence to the civil law, the purpose of which was to keep Israel separate from the pagan world around so that they might maintain purity and walk out the rest of the law. But through the Christ event the centrality of the covenant has been refocused, its boundary lines redrawn, to no longer revolve around ethnic Israel corporately, but around Christ individually, so that now all who are “in him” are the sons of God, the saints of the most high, without having to become a Jew “in the flesh” and be bound by the “works of the law”, i.e., the distinguishing marks of Torah.
Third: Of course not. The blessings always belong to the true eschatological Israel, comprised of both Jew and Gentile in Christ, and the curses belong to all who reject him, again, both Jew and Gentile alike. Paul makes this clear in Rom 11:22-23. Remember, we are not positing an Augustinian Replacement scheme here. Nobody is replaced; nothing is taken away from Israel and given to the Church. Faithful Gentiles are simply grafted into the faithful Israel, and it is the faithful who inherit the promises.
Fourth: But then you have two separate peoples of God, two covenants, two plans. To say this is to buy into the same dualism which Origen and Augustine and the whole school of Alexandria introduced, and, more importantly, it is thus to buy into a historic schism which, in my opinion, is unavoidably anti-Judaic.
This is the error of Dispensationalist Zionism, that while trying to exalt God’s plan for Israel it works off of the same Neo-Platonic foundation as Replacement theology. It’s simply erroneous, and if followed to conclusion ultimately damaging, to postulate one set of promises for ethnic Israel and another set of promises for spiritual Israel, earthly promises for the one and heavenly promises for the other, for it stems from a worldview that disdains the natural order. And so, no matter how pro-Israel it seems in light of current events, in the end it’s throwing the crumbs off the table to ethnic Israel while giving the higher, more “spiritual” promises to the Church.
I know that wasn’t in your thinking, but nonetheless I think that’s the root.
You rock bro!
Matt
matthartke
Monday, August 11, 2008 at 8:48 am
Matt, my friend,
1. I admit that I’m not a Romans guy, but, to me, in Rom. 2:28-29 Paul is speaking only to Jews, and not to Gentiles (see v.17). So a person of Jewish descent is only “Israel” if he is a Jew inwardly, by faith in the Spirit. The same with Rom. 9:6ff; see http://bibleforums.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1332452&postcount=25 for my reasoning.
As for Gal. 6:16, that’s a tough one; Paul seems to be speaking first to the Galatians (“as many as walk according to this rule”), which would be comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, but then blesses “the Israel of God” separately. Maybe you could elaborate?
The Phil. 3:3 reference still falls short of outrightly calling Gentiles “Israel”, whether “the circumcision” is a synonym or not. To me (presently), none of these passages directly gives Gentiles this special title.
2. So, before, entrance into Israel (the promises; the covenant; etc.) was by observing the civil law? I thought this was impossible; that none could keep the law, and that by the law none can be saved? Observance of the law was meant to be their way of expressing their love for God, was it not? I guess the way I understood the reason for keeping the law was in order to enter into the temple to worship (cp. Eph. 2:14), though salvation specifically was always by faith (faith that works). Now, though, Gentiles can come into His presence apart from circumcision.
Set me straight (this is a difficult subject)!
3. Sweet… (this was, as you probably guessed, just for the record, since I showed concern for this when talking to you earlier).
4. I’m not talking about two different people or covenants here (maybe I shouldn’t have differentiated between “earth” and “heaven”, as that isn’t even exactly what I meant; sorry for the confusion). The church in China are “one man” with all other ethnicities in Christ, yet still maintain their ethnic distinctions. We as Americans do the same. We are in the same new covenant with them, and not a different one, and are one people with them in Jesus, though we have different traditions and such.
I suppose, just to clarify, that I mean that as we are all in the Apostle, and are all to be apostolic, only some are given to be apostles; the same goes with the new priesthood. To me, Messianic Jews are in a focused way called to be priests to the Gentiles, though saved Gentiles are also to be priestly. I believe that they have been ordained as a nation in a way that all other nations have not. The nation of Israel is to be (and will be, I believe) a priest to all other nations, just as the tribe of Levi was to be for the other tribes. I simply do not see a problem with this.
I also don’t see this exalting Israel above others, nor is this saying that they are saved differently than all others; they just have a different calling than we do, plain and simple. Will they have a different inheritance? Levi was promised a different one…
Looking forward to your response. I am teachable; teach me! – Ben
Ben Varner
Thursday, August 14, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Ben,
I’m glad you’re pressing me on this! It’s made me realize that I haven’t even dealt with any particular texts in all of this. So here we go:
First off, let’s look at Rom 2. There’s a contrast made consistently throughout this passage between unsaved ethnic Israel and believing Gentiles, between the “circumcised” and the “uncircumcised”. Since the beginning of the chapter Paul has been advancing an argument against non-messianic Judaism, focusing in particular on the civil law and its fundamental inability to produce Torah-faithfulness within the nation. This is the whole point of the series of rhetorical questions to the self-proclaimed “Jew” in vv. 17-24. In as early as vv. 14-15, however, he introduces another party into the discussion, a party who, though they are physically uncircumcised and do not possess the law, are actually bearing fruit to God and thus (this is more implicit in v. 15 and 29, but it becomes abundantly clear in chs. 5-8 ) stand as a testimony that He has renewed the covenant, writing His law on the hearts of His people by the power of the Spirit (cf., Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:26). This contrast between the unfruitful Jew and the fruitful Gentile resounds in vv. 25-29. The Jew, though he is physically circumcised, still remains a breaker of the law (v. 25); but the Gentile, though he is physically uncircumcised, astoundingly keeps the heart-level requirement of the law (vv. 26-27).
The fact that Paul’s point in vv. 25-27 is posed through a question does not imply that the Gentile law-keeper is merely a hypothetical rhetorical devise that could in fact never be, as many suggest. The whole point of the argument rests on the fact that there actually is a renewed company who are carrying forth God’s redemptive purpose in the power of the Spirit. It’s important to note also that the singular “Jew” who is the subject of this polemic stands for unsaved Israel corporately; it isn’t aimed at an individual. This becomes clear as Paul moves into ch. 3, where he refers back to the same singular noun with the pronouns “them”, “us” and “we”. The reason this is important is because it addresses your second question: This isn’t a wholesale old covenant vs. new covenant contrast, as if no one could be justified under the old covenant, or as if they were justified by a different means than in the new. The example of Abraham in ch. 4 obviously negates such a conclusion. (Incidentally, 3:25-26 gives the key to reconciling the tension of the old covenant’s weakness and inability to justify with the fact that there was a faithful remnant prior to the Christ event.) But Paul is definitely saying that the old covenant was imperfect, that the nation of Israel could not be redeemed and the cosmos could not be restored through dry-road adherence to the “written code”. He makes it abundantly clear that God needed to act on Israel’s behalf. Thus the contrast is between “law” and “grace”, between the impotency of Israel’s civil ordinances and the power of the Spirit to produce true law-keepers.
Now, with all of the above in mind, especially the Jew/Gentile contrast of vv.25-27, notice the “for” that Paul begins v. 28 with. That conjunction links the argument he has been mounting in the previous three verses with the conclusion he draws in the next two. So then, the “Jew who is one inwardly” must be referring to the same company that has been the positive side of the contrast consistently throughout the chapter, namely uncircumcised Gentiles. This is confirmed once more by what Paul goes on to say in 3:1 (“what advantage then has the Jew?”); because ethnic Israel’s position of honor wouldn’t even be called into question if the contrasted subjects of 2:28-29 were both of Jewish decent, as you say is the case.
In regards to 9:6, I read your post on bibleforums and I’m tracking with you, but I think you’ve missed something. Standing alone it’s true that the phrase “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” doesn’t necessarily imply that Gentiles are included in the true “Israel”; in and of itself it only insists negatively that not all Jews are included in that company. However, Paul doesn’t mean for that to be a stand-alone statement. He goes on to state positively: “But the children of the promise are counted as the seed”. Who are the ones that are counted as Abraham’s descendants? Following the logic of the passage to Paul’s own conclusion in vv. 23-33, we see clearly that he includes Gentiles in the “children of promise”, the “seed”, and thus in the true eschatological “Israel” of v. 6.
You’re right about Galatians 6:16; it’s a tough one and I wouldn’t hang my hat on it, but nonetheless I think there is a strong case to be made for “the Israel of God” being a referent to the whole body of Christ, Jew and Gentile alike. The main reason for this is the way in which Paul is summing up his whole argument through such definitive statements in these last verses, the focal point of which centered around what exactly makes one a member of the renewed family of God. His insistence throughout has been that believing Gentiles are now included in the covenant promises along with believing Jews through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah – who is the true “seed” of Abraham, the true “Israel of God”. He is emphatic about the fact that there is no covenantal difference between Jew and Gentile in the Messiah, that the civil ordinances which once stood between them, delineating the boundaries of the covenant and distinguishing a Jew from a Gentile – that “tutor” is no longer necessary, it has fulfilled its interim purpose of leading Israel historically to the Messiah. Now, according to Paul, “all are one in the Messiah Jesus” and there is no racial delineation as far as God’s promises to Abraham are concerned.
I’m having trouble tracking with your thinking in regards to Phil 3:3. Practically speaking, why would it matter if the NT didn’t ever outright call Gentiles by the name of Israel when it clearly uses synonyms over and over again? What, in your view, would be the difference between “the circumcision”, “sons of God”, “kingdom of priests” etc, and simply calling Gentiles “Israel”?
Another passage I forgot to mention is Eph 2:11-22. Here Paul outright calls believing Gentiles “fellow citizens” of “the commonwealth of Israel”. Thoughts?
matthartke
Sunday, August 17, 2008 at 3:16 pm
In response to your last couple paragraphs, I think this is a point of the debate in need of clarification. If what you mean by saying that Israel has a “different calling” within the unity of the body of Christ is simply that they, as a particular ethnicity, have a gift mix that some other ethnicities don’t share to the same degree (1 Cor 12 style) – well in that case I would agree wholeheartedly. Jews have a knack for business, for instance, that most Hawaiians don’t share. That’s a gift we can track all the way back to the patriarchs in Genesis. But there’s a big difference between all of the various gifts that individuals, families, and whole ethnicities hold respectfully and the one great covenantal calling which incorporates each of those respective gifts, the call to be the people of God for the world. Distinction with regard to the former obviously stands true now as it ever has for ethnic Israel, but with regard to the latter it most emphatically does not.
And here lies the problem with saying that Israel still holds a “different calling” from Gentiles in Christ; it’s a statement seeking to maintain Israel’s separateness and singular covenantal role as seen in the OT, which was precisely the one great calling to be the people of God for the world, under the false assumption that such a separateness is coherent with the NT, which consistently declares that through Christ God has opened the door of the covenant for the Gentiles to be the people of God themselves. In other words, it’s not simply saying that Jews have a distinct role from Chinese who have a distinct role from Russians who have a distinct role from Americans, as if this were a holistic “diversity within unity” where everyone is special in their own way; rather it’s inescapably saying that Jews have a distinct role from everyone else, that they are, not as the redeemed but as Jews, a “peculiar treasure above all people” (Ex 19:5; Deut 14:2; cf., Tit 2:14).
matthartke
Monday, August 18, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Matt and Ben,
Love your conversation. This is facinating stuff. Got a question about God’s promises for Israel and Gentiles… In your view, is there anything that God has promised specifically to give to/do for Israel (faithful Israel as opposed to believing Gentiles) that they do not have access to now in Christ, that you believe God will fulfill/give to them (Israel only) in the future? What would that be? And why do the Gentile believers not recieve it/those things?
I think there may be some eschatalogical issues that could easily be sorted out with the answer to that question.
Blessings,
Wesley
wesleyb
Monday, August 18, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Wesley,
Great question. That’s actually the very question that got me started pondering this whole issue. The problem I found myself faced with was that I wanted to reserve a special place and calling for Israel in the millennium, thinking that this would sort out all the seeming discord between the Old and New Testaments, but I hadn’t really thought about what exactly that calling would be. Then I realized that Israel’s calling under the Old Covenant and the place which the prophets declare she will have in the future was not just a sub-calling or one-place-among-many within the covenant, like the “hand”, “foot” and “eye” illustration which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 12, but was in fact the overarching call of the redeemed to be the light of the world – the place and calling of the faithful Israel which Jesus opened up for the Gentiles.
So, as I said in my original post, I now believe that the OT promises made to Israel must be understood, in light of what Jesus has done, to include saved Gentiles in every respect. I honestly don’t see how another conclusion can be reached if we are to take the NT writers seriously.
matthartke
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 7:25 am
Matt,
Wow! That’s a strong position. I’m with you wholeheartedly in this line of thinking. But these ideas leave me with a decidedly apostolic amillennial (with an Israel mandate) position. Are you any more friendly to that idea than before? Or, would you see the purpose for a literal 1000 year pre-eternal kingdom to simply fall upon the shoulders of all believers at the time of Christ’s appearing rather than just Israel?
I’m sure you catch that my last question was spiced with rich bias and was done so in the spirit of fun… I guess my question is simply, how, if at all, has this changed your millennial thinking?
Blessings brother,
Wesley
wesleyb
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Well I was never Premillennial because of Israel actually. I remember when I first read Walvoords book on the millennial kingdom a few years back; I couldn’t make any sense of the first two thirds of the book, because his whole apologetic for Premillennialism was via God’s promises to Israel. I am and have always been Premillennial mostly because I think it makes the best sense of Revelation 20. I just can’t bring myself to saying that “a thousand” really means “two thousand plus” and “the first resurrection” really means “a new level of bliss felt by the martyred saints in heaven” or something of that sort.
However, as far as I can tell at the moment, there’s really nothing inherently valuable about a PM position that can’t be had in an AM scheme as well. What about Israel? Nope. Ruling with Christ? We’ll do that for eternity, not just for a thousand years. The value of human process? Well we have been dealing with that process for six thousand years, haven’t we? A positive view of the created order and a hope for it’s redemption. Most prominent AM scholars nowadays would carry such an expectancy for the created order the same as PM. Futuristic expectations for the kingdom that aren’t yet realized? The kingdom is “already but not yet” to both AM and PM, and so a particular emphasis on the “already” or the “not yet” isn’t really dependent on either millennial view.
So I really just don’t care about that debate so much any more, which is liberating.
matthartke
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Matt,
I’ve never read Walvoord’s book, but I’ve never met a premillennialist who didn’t offer that the reason for a literal 1000 year kingdom was essentially for God to make good on promises He made to Israel that must be fulfilled. If we are fellow citizens in the commonwealth of Israel, it makes sense that whatever God promised to Israel, we will share in it.
But at the risk of pressing you too far; I would be very happy to concede that a premillennial view makes the best sense from a literal reading of Rev 20. Would you concede that an amillennial view makes the best sense of the Bible as a whole?
Looking forward to your thoughts,
Wesley
wesleyb
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 8:33 pm
The quintessential historic premillennialist, George Eldon Ladd, had more of a Reformed perspective and he didn’t believe the thousand year reign was essentially for God to make good on the promises He made to ethnic Israel. And I think his stance does reflect best the “chiliast” view of the early church.
To be honest, up till recently I just never really had much clarity on the issue, because I didn’t invest much thought into it beyond reading Romans 11:26 and thinking “Hey! that means Israel can’t be replaced by the Church!” I never bought into a fully dualistic dispensational framework either though, so I just let the inconsistencies hang in vague language while I rode the fence.
As per your question, yes, I would concede that to a degree, inasmuch as I would agree that there really aren’t any definitive texts that bolster a PM reading of Rev 20 (save perhaps Isa 65), that a 1,000 year reign of Christ pre-eternal state really was an entirely new piece of info when John received it, and that it would be a bit easier on passages like 1 Cor 15 and 2 Pet 3 if that new piece of info never came. But then again there really aren’t any definitive texts which stand in the way of a PM reading either, so there’s really no justifiable reason to go against that reading, IMO.
I’m pretty much 100% opposed to a historicist reading of the chapter. It just makes no sense at all. A preterist reading makes a whole lot more sense, but from the small pool of preterists I’ve read it still falls short in vv. 4-6. I’m entirely open, however, so I’d love to talk to you more and get your take on it. Let’s do it over phone though and leave this thread for Israel.
Love ya Wesley!
Matt
matthartke
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 9:47 am
Okay getting back to Israel…
So I just got out of class, which was quite humorous because they were discussing ethnic Israel’s specific calling (both now and in the Millennium) while I was reading this blog. It made me smile.
I think at this point I am tracking with you, and pretty much agree with the points you’ve made. Matt, you did an amazing job presenting this whole thing with clarity and minimal contentiousness. It actually seems like a argument that is seeking truth as opposed to just reacting to the guy down the street!
However, there are two points of tension that I still hold in my mind on this subject:
1) Has the Lord promised that He will preserve a remnant from literal ethnic Israel in order to display His power?
2) Will “all [ethnic] Israel be saved” at the Second Coming as a testimony of the greatness of God and His leadership throughout the ages?
These are two areas that I’m not sure the New or Old Testaments leave room for simply any believer to fulfill, but what are your thoughts on this?
ihopbecky
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Becky,
I’m so glad you asked these questions, since we haven’t yet addressed them straight on. The short answer is “yes” on both accounts.
I don’t see why all of this (shall we call it “mono-ecclesiology”?) would change ones reading of Romans 11. Paul has nothing at all to say about ethnic Israel having a separate calling from Gentiles in that chapter, and his “olive tree” analogy actually conflicts with such an idea. Rather, he simply affirms that God’s arms remain outstretched to any and all who might return (vv. 2, 11-15, 23), as is evidenced by his own conversion (v. 1) and the small remnant which remain (vv. 5, 7), and that ultimately, at the end of the age, a great number (possibly Zechariah’s 1/3?) will be saved along with believing Gentiles (vv. 12, 15, 24, 26) so that we might all exult in the powerful mercy of God (vv. 22-23, 30-36).
Paul wants the Gentile believers in Rome to know that God has by no means rejected the original people whom He called, that it’s not as if the Gentiles have replaced the Jews in His plan. His call for ethnic Israel stands now as it always has, for “the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable” (vv. 28-29). He has not ditched the old and started anew (supercessionism), and yet neither has He split His covenant family into two separate groups (dispensationalist zionism), but rather the Gentiles have been “grafted in” to the faithful Israel, the one historic people of God (vv. 16-17). They should not boast against the Jews, for it’s upon the shoulders of Jews that they stand, they have accepted a torch which was first received and for two thousand years carried almost entirely by Jews (v. 18). As Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “salvation is of the Jews”.
The only appropriate response, therefore, is gratefulness, which is exactly what Paul appeals to as he calls for immediate support for the church in Jerusalem (15:25-27). “For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things,” he says, “their duty is also to minister to them in material things.” This, it seems, at least according to Paul, is the Israel mandate; not to blindly support the political state of Israel in all of its endeavors, but in grateful-meekness to give the best of our resources – our time, money and energy – toward advancing the gospel in the land, and to support our Jewish brethren who are giving themselves to that end.
But again, none of this is based on Jews having a distinct calling in this age or in the age to come; rather it’s based wholly on the heart of a dynamically relational and loving God who had a friend named Abraham, and on His outrageous mercy that continues to chase that man’s rebellious children – not because He has to, as if He was bound by a contract He now regrets signing, but because He wants to, because His faithfulness remains even when we are faithless.
matthartke
Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Side note: Romans 11:26 is probably the most talked about verse when it comes to this issue, and yet if you’ll notice I haven’t really given it much space. There’s actually a reason for that: I don’t think it matters so much. Whether you take it as referring to a remnant of ethnic Israel at the end of the age, or to the collective salvation of the “Israel of God” comprised of Jew and Gentile throughout history, either way Paul would be stating the obvious. Of course all Israel will be saved; every ethnicity will be saved when it’s all said and done. The necessary qualifications that must be applied to “all” for it to be a realistic and non-heretical statement makes the whole sentence redundant to what Paul has been saying all along. So, regardless of who “Israel” refers to, it isn’t a new piece of information to the message of the passage itself and therefore shouldn’t be a hill that anyone is willing to die on.
matthartke
Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 4:18 pm
@Becky:
I know Matt has answered these questions already but I want to answer them just for fun.
1) Yes… scriptural evidence: Romans 11:15 (with context set by verse 1). By remnant are you referring to the End of the Age remnant of Zechariah 13:8-9 and Zephaniah 8:13 by any chance?
2) Yes… but then again, everyone who didn’t worship the beast at the End of the Age and take the mark etc will be saved too, because you can’t argue with the risen Son of God descending to the Earth with the armies of Heaven. But special attention to the salvation of the Jews is highlighted in Zechariah 12 at this time.
* * *
@Matt:
I certainly agree with you on the issue regarding whether Israel has a distinct calling apart from the saved Gentiles for eternity… I haven’t found anything to suggest that, though I’m open to anyone who finds scriptures to point that out though. But my understand has been that the salvation we have in Jesus is the pinnacle… and that the acceptance of Jesus by Israel will reconcile the original branches back into the core covenant of faith established between God and Abraham which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
drwasho
Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 6:58 am
I still believe that Israel as a nation will have the distinct calling of being a priest to the Gentile nations (though Matt has done an excellent job of convincing me that it’s okay to call saved Gentiles “of true Israel”). When I look at Isa. 61:5-6 and Zech. 8:23, I can’t help but see this as the fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel that they would be a priest to the nations (Rom. 11:29).
This is not the same as individual Gentiles in Christ being a light to the world, or the church being “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people” (1 Pet. 2:9), for we are only so because we are in Israel, the Israel of Abraham’s faith and lineage, a faith in Jesus.
Israel has a history in God that we as Gentiles simply do not have (and do not gain by becoming grafted in); when they are all saved, the love produced in them as a whole will thrust them further into separation from the rest, as is the nature of holiness, and this not to maintain their Jewishness but their priestliness, being a natural overflow, a wellspring from within.
These are my present thoughts on this, though, as always, I am teachable. Bless you all. – Ben
Ben Varner
Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Yo Ben… what’s up man! Been a while since the Onething forums
So, saved Israel being a priest to the Gentiles as described in Isaiah 61:5-6 and Zech. 8:23… well there isn’t anything to suggest that Israel will be priests specifically to/for Gentiles, I think it has more to do with the fact that they will be recognized as a Kingdom of Priests by the Gentiles (at least according to Isaiah 61).
Zechariah 8:23 is a great point though, I had the feeling there was a passage of scripture in the prophets like this. So yeah, a great scripture demonstrating the fact that the Gentiles will grab onto Israelites as they will recognize that Jesus is their Messiah…. pretty fantastic role!
drwasho
Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Ben,
In response to your thoughts from Isa 61 and Zech 8, I don’t think this issue is solvable by simply finding an OT text or two where it seems like a special place/calling is prophesied for ethnic Israel and running with that, because it’s clear that the early church believed that through Christ those prophecies now include “grafted in” Gentiles as well.
There are many other OT passages you could have cited which speak of Israel’s special place and function. Take Ex 19:5-6, Isa 42:1-9, Isa 49:3-7, Jer 31:31-37 or Ezek 36:26-27, for example, where Israel is called things like “a special treasure above all people”, “a kingdom of priests”, “a holy nation”, “the elect one”, “a light to the Gentiles” and “[the Lord's] salvation to the ends of the earth”. All of these are applied to the renewed Jew-plus-Gentile family of God in the New Testament.
Looking back on Jesus’ obedience to God and on his death, resurrection and exaltation in retrospect, the New Testament writers all understood that through him God had renewed the covenant with Israel, and that since it had been renewed through his singular faithfulness (and not Israel’s corporate obedience as was commonly anticipated), it was no longer centered around Israel as a nation but had instead been reconstituted around Jesus. The believer is now counted as an heir of the covenant promises, and thus as a child of Abraham, through participating “in the Messiah” (Paul’s most common phrase), and ethnic distinction is no longer a part of the equation. The NT is unanimously clear on this.
So, I guess I’m not following the logic of your second paragraph. It seems like you’re saying that the place which the OT prophets reserve for Israel is not the same as the one which the NT writers say Gentiles share in, because we are grafted into Israel and not vice-versa. But, if I’m not mistaken, you’re reasoning makes the exact opposite point you wish to make here, which is precisely the point I’ve been making all along – that since we’ve been grafted into the true Israel we do share in in her place and calling. Help me out here.
And in response to your last paragraph, I’m really not sure how valid a point that is, to be honest. I don’t mean to say that ethnic Israel hasn’t held a special place in history, but to say that “Israel has a history in God that we as Gentiles simply do not have” just isn’t an objectively true statement. Ethnic Israel was the predominant vehicle of God’s covenantal purpose for 2,000 years before Christ, and (speaking purely numerically) Gentiles have been the predominant vehicle for the last 2,000 years since Christ. So I would say that we both have a lot to learn from each other.
Matt
matthartke
Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Matt, I don’t have any deep theological insights to bring, but I do believe that we are Israel, in the sense that I explain below. I’ve copied and pasted from an August 30, 2007 post I made on Dave Sliker’s site. The part of the post that I wanted to share with you is the quote from Alec Motyer, especially the last sentence.
____________________
(old post)
Galatians 6:16… I love the verse and have notes in all the margins around it. Here’s my take: From the context of the book, and especially the immediate passages, I think it’s pretty clear that Paul is referring to the uncircumcised believers as “The Israel of God”.
My opinion may have been influenced by this quote by Alec Motyer that I came across about a year ago. It’s from an interview in The Presbyterian Layman, May 2000. I absolutely love the last sentence.
Motyer – “The whole Bible is bound together around the single theme ‘I will be your God and you will be my people.’ The same way of salvation is found right throughout the Bible. We trust the promises of God and are saved. I would lay most stress on the singleness and unity of the people of God running right through the Bible. We are the people of God. [Early believers] should never have allowed the people of Antioch to get away with nicknaming them Christians. Our proper name is Israel.”
Here’s the link to the article: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?688
(And no, this is not meant to infer replacement theology, certainly not by Motyer, nor me!)
Scott
Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Scott,
I love that Motyer quote! I remember it from when you quoted it on Sliker’s blog way back. Motyer has been a big influence on me too in all of this – particularly his commentary on Isaiah.
It was when I realized that Isaiah’s servant songs were originally about Israel, and not direct prophecies about Jesus per se, that everything started to shift and I began to understand how the early church saw Jesus’ vocation as a representative role that brought Israel’s history to its climax, doing what Israel had failed to do in order to save Israel and the world. And since that realization over Isaiah’s “servant”, I’ve slowly come to the same conclusion over the other two major titles which Jesus used for himself: “son of God” and “son of man”. The latter church invested those titles with the contrasting “divine” and “human” connotations, but originally, in their OT usage, they were both titles for Israel (Ex. 4:22; Dan 7:13-14, cf., vv. 18, 22, 27), and from there they slowly developed a representative/messianic meaning (Ps. 2:7; Matt 16:16; Mark 10:45, etc).
Needless to say this has revolutionized the way I read the gospels.
matthartke
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 6:44 am
I just want to emphasize again, looking back over this whole discussion, that I don’t think this really changes that much in terms of how we should relate to unsaved Jews. Israel’s calling and God’s plan for her is not at all diminished in this view, it just recognizes that we’ve been included into that plan and calling as well. So nothing changes in the way we should pray or the importance of that prayer – it’s no less significant! To assume that God’s plan for Israel is now made insignificant is to think like the child who enjoys his toys only so long as none of the other kids have them.
I personally am more moved by God’s heart for Israel now, because the emphasis has shifted from Israel being specifically important because she will be really great and useful to God’s plan in the millennium to Israel being specifically important because God is so dynamically relational and cares so deeply for her that, wounded as He is by her long history of unfaithfulness, He is all the more set on having her with Him. He is the God of the prophets, the Hebrew God of pathos who was revealed ultimately in the person and work of Jesus Christ, and He is moved intensely by the actions, whether good or bad, of the ones He sovereignly sets His affections upon.
Like many things, when God’s heart itself is brought into the equation the precise schemes and categories loose their import to some respect, for we realize that His heart is not reducible to those schemes and categories. As always, the bridal paradigm is key.
matthartke
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 7:02 am
“It was when I realized that Isaiah’s servant songs were originally about Israel”
Matt, I’ve lightly read those chapters in Motyer’s commentary. Can you point me to something there to help me understand the quote above?
I love what you write. I just wish I understood it!
Scott
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Actually, that last comment of mine sounds a bit off. Your writing is very clear and your heart for God even clearer, and I feel edified when I read it.
The parts I get are amazing and the parts I don’t get are because I can’t remember what the theological terms mean. It’s a language of it’s own.
Scott
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Bing’s on board. Bing came here expecting a bit of a barney about all this Israel stuff, but it looks like there’s little but accord. Bing wants to point out a single moment where he feels that Hartke has gone off the deep end a little, and said a few things he didn’t mean:
On August 19th, Hartke listed the defficiencies of the premillennialism vs. amillennialism debate, and its defunction following this post.
Firstly, while far too many premillennialists might be leaning too dispensationally in their thought toward Israel, their apparently semitophile attitudes appear to lead them into a much more dilligent focus on prayer for unfaithful ethnic Israel than I have yet noticed in amillennial camps. I would agree to no discernible difference between amillennial and premillennial positions only with the caveat that we are discussing amillennial positions held by men and women with revelation as to the biblical mandate (which has not expired) to pray for the salvation of Israel.
Secondly, the claim of amillennialism that the first resurrection is spiritual, and that the kingship of the saints is currently spiritual leads me to fear an amillennial position where the kingship of the saints is made entirely spiritual. Obviously I believe that we are ruling and reigning with Christ today, as would any amillennialist, but I would seek to insure against this current reality superceding our future glorification and much more literal rulership.
I am less sure as to what Hartke means by “the value of human process”, but I believe that although the Bible is silent in regards to the level of participation the saints will have in the regeneration or recreation of the earth, it would be a mistake to discount any possibility of such a phenomenon, as it would be to dogmatically presume it.
Finally, and most important, I would vehemently disagree with both Hartke and Wesley in the presumption that “an amillennial view makes the best sense of the Bible as a whole?”
An amillennial view is certainly neater than a premillennial view, and has fewer loose ends, but suffers fatally in its direct contradiction of scripture, which would certain disclude it from “making the best sense of the Bible”.
Bing
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Hey Matt,
It was great to talk with you in the coffee shop about all this some more; it really clarified your position in my own mind. I still am not yet on board with you, and still have lots of questions. I’ve been reading through Romans, and need you to explain some of these verses to me, because it seems as if Paul is saying that those who were given the law are no longer under it, but by the Spirit are now able to uphold it (3:31)?
He says there’s much value still in circumcision of the flesh (3:1-2); that the law was intended to bring life (7:10), for it is spiritual (7:14); that it is only we who are in Christ who can meet the righteous requirements of the law (8:3-4); the the mind controlled by the Spirit submits to God’s law (8:7); that we are to fulfill the law just as Jesus did (13:8-10)… there’s more, but I’m pressed for time. Could you talk a bit about this, and explain again why Acts 15 isn’t saying that Messianic Jews are to keep the law, but not so for Gentiles?
Thanks so much. – Ben
Ben Varner
Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 7:10 am
Hey Ben,
Matt will undoubtedly deal with the brunt of your questions by I want to address the last one. From my understanding the Messianic Jews at the time of Acts 15 were keeping the law partly in order to maintain a foothold in witnessing to other Jews… as attested by Paul who said “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law” (1 Cor 9:19).
However, this was not the only reason… I believe (and have no real evidence to prove this but I believe the reasoning is sound) it was just one of those things in that the apostles and messianic Jews were living in the Hebrew culture where keeping the law was next to Godliness (small pun intended). However for Gentiles, they were under no obligation to keep this law, just as the Jews were not under obligation to keep this law because salvation was by grace through faith, justified in faith and proven in good works. For the Jews however, keeping the law was part of their Jewish identity, which they wanted to remain a part of for various reasons.
Gentiles on the other were not part of this culture or community and as they were free from the law, it was completely out of line for people to try and impose the law upon them… clearly overlooking that we are justified by faith and not by the works of the law.
– end of answer –
Faith in Jesus Christ plugs us into the covenant promises to Abraham (Galations 3), which includes righteousness and justification by faith… the law’s purpose was to convict us of sin and keep us for faith in Jesus (the law pointing out that we’re sinners and in need of redemption in Jesus by faith). The law also pronounced us guilty and fully deserving of death. As a result, we literally have to die In Christ, through baptism, to be set free from the judgment decreed by the law in order to be raised from dead In Christ, through baptism, to live under the new law of faith with the life of Christ living through us by the Spirit (Galations 2:19, Romans 6). The promise of the Father alluded to in Joel 2, Acts 2 and Galations 3 is the Spirit of God living on the inside of us to will and to do righteousness by walking as Jesus walked, who fulfilled the law…. it’s Christ In us, the hope of glory, this is the main point.
Or in shorter words: the law was given as a tutor until Christ to lead us to Jesus who made a living way through His body and blood into that Abrahamic covenant by faith.
Washington Y Sanchez
Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 9:38 am
I wish that I was back at your house with Sam and Jonny, and that we could hold this discussion face to face…but…
I just had one question that at this point I would like to bring into the discussion (though many more are brewing). Revelation 7, and 14’s 144 thousand – are these enthic Israel? And if so, do they enter the millenium in a glorified state (in other words, wearing incorruptable bodies). Or, do they enter the millenial reign as an earthly, and national enthic group occupying modern day Israel?
sorry, looks like two questions, or maybe ten.
Jeremy
Saturday, August 30, 2008 at 11:12 am
Scott,
Thanks for the compliment! It was good to see you here at the conference last weekend.
I don’t have the commentary with me at the moment, but I would check his comments on 41:9, 42:1-9 and 49:3. If I remember rightly, he says that the “servant” was an open vocation, an empty seat designated “Israel” (i.e., “Prince with God”). It was the calling God held open for Israel, the very calling which Jesus fulfilled on Israel’s behalf. Thus, Jesus is Israel-in-person.
I love this quote from N.T. Wright:
matthartke
Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Bing,
I have little but “yes and amen!” to say to the points you’ve made. I appreciate your concern over the potential “slippery slope” that an amillennial designation can lead to. We have example after example of the bad places that slope has lead many throughout church history. From that perspective I would say that dispensationalism has offered a great gift to the church in restoring a time-space hope for the earth and consequently shaking amillennialism from its medieval gnostic fortress.
However, the last century of discussion and progress between amillennialism and premillennialism has shown that those two schemes are more the “husk” and that the “kernel” can be had in either. Many amillennialists are now becoming functional premillennialists, which has caused me to turn a kind eye to them.
matthartke
Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Jeremy,
No comment.
I’m actually getting back into Revelation right now, after a long time of setting it aside. I’ve been specifically looking into the pros and cons of a preterist reading. We’ll see what comes of it, but I will say that I’m intrigued by seeing the 144,000 as representative of the first Jewish Christians, who, as a matter of history, were divinely warned to flee Jerusalem before the war of 66-70AD (Eusebius). More than any other, this group could appropriately be called “firstfruits to God” (Rev 14:4; cf., James 1:1, 14). And seen from this perspective, that number could then become typological, and not necessarily literal, for the larger remnant (1/3?) of Jews whom God will preserve at the end of the age.
But I know that doesn’t really answer your question. There are a ton of theories on who exactly the 144,000 are, and I wouldn’t hang my theological hat on any of them…
So when you gonna come and visit?
matthartke
Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Slippery slope…
Washington Y Sanchez
Friday, September 12, 2008 at 7:29 am
Time for a new picture dude; the old one is starting to scare me.
Scott
Saturday, September 13, 2008 at 10:58 pm
It was great to see you too Matt, with the new clean-cut look! Thanks for your reply about where to look in Mottyer’s commentary.
Regarding the quote by NT Wright – “That, too, is the underlying rationale for the abolition of the… holy status of the land of Israel”. This seems like a mental leap that I wasn’t prepared to make: the removal of the status of “holy” from the land of Israel… I think I understand some of the biblical principles behind the statement, but it leaves me scratching my chin because of the implications. Certainly the status of Israel in the view of God did change when they were cut off and we were grafted in. But Wright’s statement seems to imply that God utterly rejected the Jews, but of course Romans 11:1 explicitly refutes that. Or maybe he is inferring only that the literal land is no longer holy to the Lord, but that has tremendous scriptural problems too.
Oh well, the simplest explanation here is the also the most likely: I don’t know enough about NT Wright’s writings to get worked up over one phrase!
Scott
Saturday, September 13, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Scott,
I totally agree with you that the land is still sacred in God’s sight; He will fulfill His promise to Abraham. Revelation 21-22 makes that clear.
Knowing the context of where Wright is coming from, however, I know he in no way means to imply that God rejected the Jews. By “holy” I think he means the way in which the people and the land were set apart under the old covenant, as God’s purpose was more particularly honed in on Israel and they were called to separate themselves from the world around.
But that phase in God’s purpose concluded with Christ’s coming. Now Israel, renewed and reconstituted in Christ, has been commissioned in the power of the Spirit to declare the gospel of God’s new day to a world still lost in darkness. And in that sense God’s eyes have shifted, from focusing on one people in one locale to focusing, through that one people, on every tribe, tongue and nation across the earth, because Jesus has opened up the way for Israel to become a world-wide family. That, also, is clear in Revelation 21-22, just as it is throughout the rest of the NT.
matthartke
Sunday, September 14, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I think you’re right, it’s starting to creep me out too!
matthartke
Sunday, September 14, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Nice picture. You’re older than I thought. Are you eating something?
Scott
Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 10:13 pm
That’s my favorite pic of C.S. Lewis, with a big cloud of smoke rising from his pipe.
Matt
Saturday, September 20, 2008 at 11:06 pm
There is a middle route between both extremes. Unfortunately the entire debate has become so unnecessarily polarised and pejorative. I’ve just edited a new book on this issue, details of which can be found at http://www.thechurchandisrael.com. (It contains details of the contents, contributors, and endorsements). I’d be interested to learn of people’s views of the approach taken by the book, which seeks to eschew some of the acrimonious past approaches.
Calvin
Monday, May 11, 2009 at 2:31 pm