True Teaching on the True Israel

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

True Teaching on the True Israel Nov 26, 2023 12:53:08 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 12:53:08 GMT -5

BY REV. FRED KLETT
Much fuss has been made in our Jewish evangelism circles regarding "replacement" theology, the idea that the church has "replaced" the Jewish people in the plan of God. Some have even accused all who think New Covenant believers are "Spiritual Israel" as being guilty of this "replacement theology", that is, of replacing the Jewish people with the church. Charges have been made that this idea of "Spiritual Israel" leads to anti-semitism.

Ironically my first exposure to the idea of all believers being spiritually Israel came about through involvement in "Messianic Judaism"! Way back in 1975 I attended a seminar by Manny Brotman, president of the "Messianic Jewish Movement International" on "How to Share the Messiah". In the seminar notes I read: "When a Gentile asks the Messiah into his heart and life, he is accepting the Jewish Messiah, the Jewish Bible, and the Jewish blood of atonement and could be considered a proselyte to biblical Judaism and a child of Abraham by faith!" Isn't this essentially a statement of the "Spiritual Israel" idea?

Getting The Big Picture

We must submit our thinking to the scriptures and derive even our method of interpreting of the Bible from the Bible itself! We must learn how the text interprets itself! Many have not done this. We can't base our understanding of doctrine on "spiritual" intuition or emotional arguments. We must strive, asking wisdom from the Spirit, to interpret the word of God correctly, and this certainly means we submit to the approach used by the apostles the Messiah appointed to represent Him. And we must understand how the whole Bible fits together and derive our doctrine of Israel within that framework.

God has had one purpose and plan for mankind ever since the Fall: to restore a people for Himself from fallen humanity through Messiah Jesus. Because of the Fall of Adam we have all come under the curse of God, or as the Puritans put it "through Adam's Fall sinned we all". The Jewish people, and ultimately the Jewish Messiah, brought to the world the Abrahamic promise of blessing to redeem us from the curse of the Fall. Jesus brought the blessings of Abraham "first to the Jew" and then expanded the blessing "also to the Gentile" (see Galatians 3:14and Romans 1:16). There are not two sets of Covenant promises and Covenant obligations, one for Jewish believers and one for Gentile believers, there is one New Covenant people and one faith (Eph. 2:16and 4:5).

God has had but one program from the beginning: salvation through Jesus. God purposed to restore blessing once again to a cursed world. The core of the Abrahamic promise was to bring a restoration of blessing to all peoples through the seed of Abraham. This seed is ultimately the King of Israel, the Messiah. Psalm 72:17 tells us this by applying the very words of the Abrahamic promise to the Son of David: "May his name endure forever...all nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed".

National and ethnic Israel can only find true meaning within the larger context of the renewal of all things through the Messiah. God's purposes are one. God created the Jewish people to bring Messiah to the world. You cannot divorce any of the promises to Israel from the "big picture" of redemption from the Fall through Messiah.

God has not withdrawn His promises to the Jewish people. Rather, Paul clearly tells us, "no matter how many promises God has made, they are "yes" in Messiah" (2 Cor. 1:20). The New Covenant promise of eternal life through faith in Jesus is greater than any other blessing of God ever given. Indeed this is the fulfillment of the blessing promised to Abraham. The curse of death and separation from God is overturned through Messiah. Paul clearly says "He redeemed us in order that THE BLESSING PROMISED TO ABRAHAM MIGHT COME TO THE GENTILES through Messiah Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" (Galatians 3:14). Only through Jesus can people truly come to the blessings of Abraham, life in the Spirit.

Whether we are Jews by birth or Gentiles, we who trust Messiah Jesus have one common faith. As Paul put it "There is one body and one Spirit -- just as you were called -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." (Eph. 4:4-6)

Some Jews who are for Jesus call their movement "Messianic Judaism". A few of these Jewish believers distinguish "Messianic Judaism" from "Christianity". I believe it would be better theology to distinguish between a culturally Jewish expression of New Covenant Judaism and a culturally Gentile expression of New Covenant Judaism. Our New Covenant faith is the true, Biblical Judaism.

Gentiles who come to believe in the Jewish Messiah convert to Biblical Judaism! Our New Covenant faith is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant faith. Christianity is New Covenant Judaism, the true religion of the Jewish people -- even if most Jewish people don't know it yet! The concept of "Spiritual Israel" is a Biblical doctrine. It doesn't mean "replacement"...it means EXPANSION! God has joined Gentiles to the true faith of Israel --He has expanded the nation spiritually!

Kingdom Blessings Depend Upon Following The King

To be a member of a kingdom means to swear allegiance to its king. Jesus is the King of Israel and those who follow him are members of his kingdom. Consider the implications of these passages:

John the Baptizer, said: "For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham" (Luke 3:8).

The Scriptures teach that all those who believe are Jesus' brothers (Romans 8:29and Hebrews 2:10-11). Jesus said "whoever who does God's will is my brother and sister and mother" (Mark 3:35). Jesus said he had other sheep, not of that flock (10:16). All believers are Jesus' family and the sheep of His flock.

Paul says Gentile believers are grafted in to the tree of Israel, become Abraham's children by faith, become heirs to the blessing of Abraham and are citizens of Israel (Romans 4:16-18; 11:17-21; Galatians 3:14; and Ephesians 2:19).

So, we see that every believer is a brother of Jesus, a child of Abraham, part of the flock of the Shepherd of Israel, grafted into the tree of Israel, an heir to the promise given to Abraham, and a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel! How wonderful to have become, spiritually, part of Israel!

The New Covenant

We are all covenant breakers before God. God made a covenant with Adam and we have all followed in the footsteps of our first father. What was said of Israel is also true of us "They like Adam have transgressed the covenant (1)". We can only be saved from the curse of the first covenant of Works made with Adam if God provides a Covenant of Grace for us. This is what is in focus in the covenant made with Abraham (2). The blessings promised to the nations refers to the reversal of the curse we came under through Adam. The New Covenant (3) brings to fruition the promise of blessing for the nations made to Abraham (4). Without the New Covenant all are in Adam and under the curse. Yet, the New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the House of Judah (5)! Gentiles must join themselves to the Holy Nation in order to be a part of this covenant. Yet amazingly I have been told by an opponent of the "Spiritual Israel" doctrine that Gentile believers do not have the New Covenant! He told me that since the covenant was made with Israel only Jewish people have it! Oy Vey! Do you see where the denial of the doctrine of "Spiritual Israel" logically leads?

Can it really be doubted that all believers are spiritually Israel? The scriptures tell us that Gentile believers are spiritual members of the Jewish family of faith along with the remnant of Jewish believers, even if most of the natural family members have temporarily left the household of faith by rejecting the New Covenant. By adoption Gentiles come into a relationship with the Jewish people and so should have a concern for the estranged members of their own faith family, just as they should be concerned for the spiritual return of children of Christian parents who have departed from the faith.

How can anyone reasonably deny that through the great salvation provided through the Jewish Messiah, Gentile believers have become spiritually Israel? This is the truth Jesus taught and this is the doctrine Paul taught -- pretty good theological company to find oneself in!

A Key Passage: Romans 11

Though all believers are spiritually Israel, if we truly understand Romans 11 there should be no question about the fact that God still has a claim on the Jewish people. The natural children of Abraham are still in some way chosen because of the patriarchs, even in unbelief. He will restore the Jewish people to faith one day. Romans 11:28 clearly tells us "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account, but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs." Consider these comments by leading Covenantal theologians:

John Calvin

"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. (6)"

Charles Hodge

"The second great event, which, according to the common faith of the Church, is to precede the second advent of Christ, is the national conversion of the Jews....that there is to be such a national conversion may be argued...from the original call and destination of that people. God called Abraham and promised that through him, and in his seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed...A presumptive argument is drawn from the strange preservation of the Jews through so many centuries as a distinct people.

As the rejection of the Jews was not total, so neither is it final. First, God did not design to cast away his people entirely, but by their rejection, in the first place, to facilitate the progress of the gospel among the Gentiles, and ultimately to make the conversion of the Gentiles the means of converting the Jews...Because if the rejection of the Jews has been a source of blessing, much more will their restoration be the means of good...The restoration of the Jews to the privileges of God's people is included in the ancient predictions and promises made respecting them...The plan of God, therefore, contemplated the calling of the Gentiles, the temporary rejection and final restoration of the Jews...

He shows that the rejection of the Jews was not intended to result in their being finally cast away, but to secure the more rapid progress of the gospel among the heathen, in order that their conversion might react upon the Jews, and be the means of bringing all, at last, within the fold of the Redeemer...

The future restoration of the Jews is, in itself, a more probable event than the introduction of the Gentiles into the church of God. This, of course, supposes that God regarded the Jews, on account of their relation to him, with peculiar favor, and that there is still something in their relation to the ancient servants of God and his covenant with them, which causes them to be regarded with special interest. As men look upon the children of their early friends with kinder feelings than on the children of strangers, God refers to this fact to make us sensible that he still retains purposes of peculiar mercy towards his ancient people.

As the restoration of the Jews is not only a most desirable event, but one which God has determined to accomplish, Christians should keep it constantly in view even in their labors for the conversion of the Gentiles. (7)"

John Murray

"To the Jew first, and also to the Greek...It does not appear sufficient to regard this priority as that merely of time. In this text there is no suggestion to the effect that the priority is merely that of time. The implication appears to be rather that the power of God unto salvation through faith has primary relevance to the Jew, and the analogy of Scripture would indicate that this peculiar relevance to the Jew arises from the fact that the Jew had been chosen by God to be the recipient of the promise of the gospel and that to him were committed the oracles of God...

While it is true that in respect of the privileges accruing from Christ's accomplishments there is now no longer Jew or Gentile and the Gentiles "are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Eph. 3:6), yet it does not follow that Israel no longer fulfills any particular design in the realization of God's worldwide saving purpose...

Israel are both "enemies" and "beloved" at the same time, enemies as regards the gospel, beloved as regards the election..."Beloved" thus means that God has not suspended or rescinded his relation to Israel as his chosen people in terms of the covenants made with their fathers.

Unfaithful as Israel have been and broken off for that reason, yet God still sustains his peculiar relation of love to them, a relation that will be demonstrated and vindicated in the restoration. (8)"

Geerhardus Vos

"The elective principle, abolished as to nationality, continues in force as to individuals. And even with respect to national privilege, while temporarily abolished now that its purpose has been fulfilled, there still remains reserved for the future a certain fulfillment of the national elective promise. Israel in its racial capacity will again in the future be visited by the saving grace of God [Rom. 11.2, 12, 25]....such conversions (of Jewish people) remain for the present but sporadic examples, though at bottom expressive of a divine principle intended to work itself out on the largest of scales at the predetermined point in the future. (9)"

Let us recognize with these great men of theology God's continuing love for the Jewish people, yet not center our theology on ethnic Israel. Speaking of "replacement theology", let's not replace Jesus with Israel, or even put it on an equal footing with him in the plan of God! (10)

God has not replaced the Jewish people with the church. Quite to the contrary, God has grafted Gentile branches into the tree of believing Israel, a tree made up of all true believers, both Jewish and Gentile, a tree rooted in the faith of the patriarchs (Romans 11:17-24). God has expanded Israel, not replaced it.

It precisely because of the fact that Gentile believers have been grafted into the tree of Israel, a tree foreign to their nature, that they have an obligation to the Jewish people, those natural branches which were cut off and which will be grafted in again. The doctrine of spiritual Israel should never be abused to imply God is finished with the Jewish people -- quite the contrary! It is expressly because of the truth of this doctrine we must stand by the natural branches and pray for their grafting in again!

And how foolish is any form of anti-semitism on the part of some so-called "Christian!" For a Christian to hate Jewish people is to hate his own adopted family and nation -- and even His own Jewish Lord and Savior!

Towards A Commonwealth Theology

How do we reconcile a view of the church being "Spiritual Israel" with a belief that God still has a place for the physical descendants of Abraham? This is where "Commonwealth Theology" comes in (11). The church might be compared to a commonwealth. Consider the British Commonwealth in it's heyday. Indians and Pakistanis became citizens of the British Commonwealth, even while living in India and Pakistan. These people were under the dominion of the King of Great Britain, and were therefore part of the Commonwealth. They weren't English, but they were British citizens. So it is with those who are ruled by the Jewish Messiah. Have they not submitted to the King of Israel? Are they not voluntary members of His Kingdom, under His rule and in His service? Those who believe have accepted Israel's King and are now members of His Kingdom, known as the Commonwealth of Israel. Israel is the Kingdom of the King of Israel. Ethnic Israel is at the core, it is the root (12), but the greater Commonwealth of Israel is made up of all who believe. Gentile believers are citizens of the commonwealth, even if not resident in the land and not physically "Jewish", just as one could be a citizen of the commonwealth of Great Britain without living in the British Isles and not being English, Scottish, or Welsh.

Spiritual Israel is made up of Jews and Gentiles submitting to the King of Israel. Physical Israel is made up of those who are Jewish, most of whom do not presently submit to the King. All who submit to the King are under His blessing. All who don't submit are not under His blessing and have cut themselves off from any participation in the eternal blessings of the Covenant of Grace. However God certainly seems to have a special place in His heart for the natives of the center of the original borders of the commonwealth, even in unbelief, just as the King of the British Isles would have a special place in his heart for natives of the British Isles and be more upset at their rebellion than at the rebellion of India or Pakistan. But rebellion is rebellion, whether conducted by natives of the home territories or members of the commonwealth. Ultimately, God's glory is at stake. Messiah will re-conquer his original territory for the sake of his own Glory. Tell me, how is such a concept in any way either showing an unbalanced ethnic favoritism on the one hand or anti-semitic on the other? Isn't this consistent with what Paul says in Ephesians 2:19? He says that Gentile believers are "no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people (13)".

Messiah, The True Israel

To expand Israel it first had to be narrowed down to one person. The scriptures teach that Jesus is the ultimate Israel. In Matthew 2:15 the Holy Spirit quotes a verse referring to national Israel "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11:1) and says Jesus fulfills this prophecy! We are being told Jesus is the true faithful Israel of God. He alone is worthy of the covenant blessings. Messiah is the supreme seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:16). Paul explicitly says: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say `and to his seeds', meaning many people, but `and to his seed' meaning one person, who is Messiah". It is only through faith in Jesus that we come into the fullness of the promise to Abraham. This is to the Jew first, and also as for Gentiles.

Understanding The Prophets Biblically (Spiritually)

Alfred Edersheim, the greatest Messianic Jewish theologian ever, said:

"..we have the glowing descriptions by all the prophets, but especially in the Book of Isaiah, of the time of the new covenant, with its blessings to Israel and to mankind. That these bear reference to a spiritual world-wide dispensation in the Messianic days needs scarcely argument, any more than that all the conditions of it have been fulfilled in that dispensation which was introduced under the New Testament." (14)

Edersheim's statement that through the New Covenant we have come to the glorious fulfillment of Messianic promises given to Israel by the prophets is clearly true to the scriptures. Consider these Biblical truths:

Israel was told "the meek will inherit the land" (Psalm 37:11). Jesus said the meek would inherit the whole earth (Mt. 5:5). Paul says Abraham was to inherit "the world" (Rom. 4:13).

God promised Israel a city named Jerusalem. We are told we have come to a glorious heavenly Jerusalem, the community of the redeemed, superior (when seen through spiritual eyes) to anything experienced under the Old Covenant administration (Hebrews 12:22-23).

Paul says the true Jerusalem, the one which fulfills Isaiah 54, is the heavenly (spiritual) Jerusalem. (See how Isaiah 54:1is interpreted in Galatians 4:26-27). This heavenly city, the church, is the congregation of the faithful (Hebrews 12:22-24).

Israel was promised a Temple; the New Covenant promises to both Jews and Gentiles (and still to the Jew first) that they can actually be the Temple! (1 Peter 2:5)

According to Isaiah 56:3 and the following verses Gentiles are admitted to God's people and come into the Temple. Hebrews says the old Temple has found fulfillment in the new. (See Hebrews 7:18, 8:13 and the whole rest of the book of Hebrews!)

Israel was promised a king -- God sent the world the King of Kings!

Certainly Edersheim was right to say of the New Covenant community: "all that had been national, preparatory, symbolic, typical, would merge into the spiritual reality of fulfillment." (15)

According to this great Jewish Christian theologian, the promises to national Israel have been realized in a glorious spiritual way through the Messiah! Even Rabbi Maimonides said: "All similar expressions used in connection with the Messianic age are metaphorical. In the days of King Messiah the full meaning of those metaphors and their allusions will become clear to all." (16)

Israel's Hope Fulfilled Beyond Expectation

Through Jesus we have more than could be conceived of by the prophets or their ancient readers. Peter says: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Messiah in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things" (1 Peter 1:10-12). Amazing! God says the Old Testament prophets were speaking us that salvation which we have received! Our current experience of salvation was spoken of by the Hebrew prophets!

Why didn't most Jewish leaders recognize it? They interpreted the promises in worldly terms rather than understanding the deeper spiritual meanings. This is still the case with the Orthodox rabbis today, who openly claim to be heirs to the Pharisees. The Orthodox rabbis today say God did not bring about the fulfillment of the messianic promises through Jesus, therefore either Jesus is not Messiah or God is a liar.

Did God fail to deliver what He promised to the Jewish people? Consider this example: What if you expected me to give you a hamburger and then I gave you filet mignon? What if you were told you would inherit an apple tree, but instead you inherited a whole glorious orchard? What if you thought I promised you $10, but then I delivered a million? What if I promised a child a typewriter when he turned 18 and when the time came I gave him the latest computer. Would I be a liar? No! When someone gives IMMEASURABLY MORE than that expected, the gift giver is no liar. God has given an even greater gift through Jesus, superior to what many think was promised!

Sadly, even many believers today do not fully understand how much greater the New Covenant redemption is that Jesus brought to Israel and the world. Why dine on hamburger when you can have filet mignon? Why settle for a single tree, when you can have the whole orchard? Why stress the $10 when there is $1,000,000 available? Why use an old Underwood manual typewriter when you can have the latest personal computer and laser printer? The Messiah and His Eternal Kingdom are the great blessings promised to Israel.

All of what God was doing in the Tenach (Old Testament) and all of the promises of God to bring redemption throughout the ages are centered in Jesus. "No matter how many promises God has made, they are "yes" in Messiah" (2 Cor. 1:20). God has something better in mind for the Jewish people, the $1,000,000 rather than the $10. Messiah offers the Jewish people (and Gentiles who believe) a greater redemption which makes the old look small in comparison.

The greatest gift and blessing of all is offered: eternal salvation through Jesus, the only name by which people can be saved. Through Messiah we are heirs to the glorious kingdom of the New Jerusalem (see Galatians 4:26 -- and notice carefully how Paul, under the Spirit's inspiration, interprets the original prophecy, Isaiah 54:1!)

The Kingdom of God is more magnificent than anything experienced under David. The past splendor of the Davidic kingdom is but a shadow of what God has done, is now doing, and will do through the Messiah (Hebrews 10:1). If we miss how God's promises reach their greater fulfillment in the New Covenant we rob Jewish and Gentile believers of a deeper understanding of the our glorious identity as sons of God through Messiah!

We must always be vigilant to combat the danger of diminishing the centrality of Jesus in the plan of God. Anything which takes the spotlight off of Jesus or diminishes the glory He is due should disturb us. Jesus alone saves us from death and Hell. He alone is the hope of the world. He alone should occupy the center of our theology. Nothing should ever take His place.

All creation groans in waiting for God's sons to be revealed. This will be the ultimate expression of the Passover liberation Messiah has brought. Renewal of all creation has already begun in those who believe -- and when Jesus returns He will liberate this creation from its bondage to decay (2 Cor. 5:17, Romans 8:17-23). The curse of the Fall is being replaced with the blessing of salvation as the kingdom of Messiah goes forward.

Let's affirm the great expansion of blessing the Messiah has brought. He has tremendously expanded the promises to Israel, and He has greatly enlarged Israel by bringing Gentiles into His spiritual commonwealth, the Kingdom of God. This was promised to Israel by Isaiah when he said "You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy...of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end" (9:3 and 7) and "Let no foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, `The LORD will surely exclude me from his people...these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer" (56:3 and 7). We have now come to "Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God...to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn..." (Hebrews 12:22-23)

Through Jesus Israel has been expanded in a glorious way, not replaced. Fulfillment of the promise to Abraham has come and will go forward until its completion when Messiah returns. Jesus must reign until all his enemies are placed under his feet. He will conquer all nations, including the Jewish nation with the gospel. Therefore, let us recommit ourselves to bringing the message of restoration to blessing "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile"!

"You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy...For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this." (17)

1. Hosea 6:7

2. Genesis 12:3 and 22:18.

3. Jeremiah 31:31ff

4. Galatians 3:14.

5. Jeremiah 31:31.

6. (Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XIX, Epistle to the Romans, Baker Book House, 1981, p. 434-440.)

7. (Systematic Theology V.3, James Clark & Co. 1960, p. 805. and A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, by Charles Hodge Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1836, pp. 270-285 passim. Now Published by Banner of Truth Trust)

8. (The Epistles to the Romans, John Murray, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984, Vol. I, p. 28 and Vol. II pp. xiv-xv and 76-101, passim.)

9. (Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments, by Geerhardus Vos (c)1948 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Tenth Printing, page 79 and The Pauline Eschatology, by Geerhardus Vos, (c) 1979 Baker Book House, page 88.)

10. This is the sin of ethnolatry. Anything can become an idol, even good things, even Israel.

11. See Ephesians 2:12

12. Romans 11:18

13. I take the phrase "God's people" to mean Jewish believers in Jesus in tis context.

14. Quoted from Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah, Baker Book House, 1955, page 180.

15. Prophecy... page 174.

16. Speaking of Isaiah 11:6 "And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb". From Guide to the Perplexed, III, ch. 11; also II, ch. 29. Quoted in A Maimonides Reader, by Isadore Twersky, page 224, Behrman House Publishers, Copyright 1972.

17. Isaiah 9: verses 3, 6 and 7.

www.chaim.org/xpansion.htm

CLOSE QUICKLINKS
By Topic
By Scripture
By Author
Latest Links
Introducing ‘Principles of Reformation’
Melton L. Duncan
The Ultimate Goal of Reformation: Our Goal is God's Glory
Jonathan Master
Justification Always By Faith - Romans 4:1-8 (Transcript)
Dr Sinclair B Ferguson
Those whom thou hast given me, I have kept - John 17:12
Anthony Burgess
How to Respond When Your Faith Is Questioned
Alistair Begg
Giving Thanks for the Goodness of God
Kevin DeYoung
Christ's Coming Is At Our Midnight - Matthew 25
William Bridge
Souls Prosperity (eBook)
William Benn
Christology: The Doctrine of Christ (eBook)
Wilhelmus a Brakel
Philadelphia: A Treatise of Brotherly Love (eBook)
William Gearing
Pursuing God: A Seekers Guide
Jim Elliff
Precious Blood
Octavius Winslow, Thomas Brooks, Stephen Charnock, John Flavel, C H Spurgeon
Authority
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Stephen Charnock, B B Warfield, A W Pink, John Owen
Peace
Wilhelmus a Brakel, William S Plumer, J C Ryle, Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Boston
Devotionals: The Valley of Vision
Arthur Bennett
Protestants Need to Go Back to Basics
Carl Trueman
Profession or Possession? - Romans 2:17-24 (Transcript)
Dr Sinclair B Ferguson
The Nature of God: Theme #3 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism
William Boekestein
The Authority of Scripture: Theme #2 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism
Andrew J. Miller
The Purpose of Humanity: Theme #1 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism
Joel R Beeke
Why Study Anthropology?
Joel R Beeke
Did Nicaea Didn’t Create the Canon?
John D. Meade
A Guide to Godliness: A Treatise of a Christian Life (eBook)
John Downame
The Christian Warrior: Wrestling with Sin, Satan, the World and the Flesh. (eBook)
Isaac Ambrose
What Does Romans 8:28 Mean?
Robert Rothwell
The Danger of Drifting Away from Jesus
Chris Gordon
Sometimes, No Amount of Evidence Is Enough
Stephen Kneale
Samuel Rutherford: Marks of the Man
Ian Hamilton
The Christological Sign of the Sabbath
Nicholas T Batzig
Who Do You Say That I Am?
Kevin DeYoung
Some Reflections on Ministerial Burnout
Mark Jones
What’s in a Title?
O Palmer Robertson
David Brooks' Moral Formation Without Morals
Aaron Renn
Roman Catholicism Is Not Christianity
Josh Buice
The Fundamental Principle of Reformation: God's Word Is Our Sure Foundation of Knowing God
Richard Phillips
7 Assertions Regarding Justification & Sanctification
Richard Phillips
The Combat Between Christ and the Devil Displayed (eBook)
William Perkins
By Grace Alone - Romans 3:21-26 (Transcript)
Dr Sinclair B Ferguson
The Covenant of Grace
Wilhelmus a Brakel
True Circumcision - Romans 2:25-29 (transcript)
Dr Sinclair B Ferguson
Two Solemn Covenants Made Between God and Man (eBook)
Edmund Calamy
Without Excuse - Romans 2:1-5 (Transcript)
Dr Sinclair B Ferguson
The Cure of Distractions in Attending Upon God (eBook)
Nathanael Vincent
The Monster of Sinful Self-Seeking, Anatomised (eBook)
Edmund Calamy
What is Man?: A Study in Biblical Anthropology (eBook)
Wilhelmus a Brakel
Following Christ in a Brave New World
Burk Parsons
Medical Modification of the Human Body
Nicholas T Batzig
What Misconceptions Can Christians Have about Worship?
Derek Thomas

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

True Teaching on the True Israel Nov 26, 2023 13:51:01 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 13:51:01 GMT -5

Reformed Perspectives Magazine, Volume 10, Number 10, March 2 to March 8 2008
Engrafted, Not Replaced
How I View True Israel, and
Why I Support Ethnic Jews and the State of Israel and
Pray for Them to Be Saved by Jesus Christ
And still believe in Covenant Theology?

By Dr. Michael Milton
President,
Reformed Theological Seminary
Charlotte, N.C.

Much has been written, and even more said, about differences in Dispensational and Reformed understandings of True Israel. 1, 2 , 3 I have heard and read much recently about the phrase "replacement theology." It is being used about my views and the views of others in the Presbyterian and the Reformed faith (which also includes Baptists, Anglicans and many others, as well) concerning some of these matters. I have also been misunderstood and sadly, probably have contributed to the misunderstanding by not taking the time to explain my views to those for whom they may seem new or somehow dif-ferent from what they have heard or even have been taught.

Well, what do Presbyterians and Reformed people believe about Israel and Jews in relationship to other believers? There have, in fact, been many in Reformed churches, particularly in the South (but also, notably, in Philadelphia at Tenth Presbyterian Church), who were influenced by godly dispensationalist Presbyterian pastors who stood up for the Word of God in the modernist-fundamentalist debates of the early twenty-century; who believed and taught doctrine according to the teachings of J.N. Darby (1800—1882) of Ireland and others who popularized his views on these matters in our country. 4 I still believe that we all have more in common than we at first think. 5 , 6 and I am unworthy to even be in the same line as the men whose ministries have blessed so many hundreds of thousands of people. 7 Where there are honest disagreements, I believe we must always stand together and do what we can to promote love and peace before a watching world. I am not saying that we should not be Bereans 8 and, in love, challenge each other over the Word of God. I have done that on occasion, when I felt it necessary, and I may be doing so in this paper. However, when we do make our views known, we must speak with honor and charity as brothers unto brothers. 9

Now onto the controversy itself. In the Reformed faith there are a variety of views about the exact relationship of non-believing Jews and what God may or may not do in terms of reaching them with the gospel; therefore, I do not speak for all. Nevertheless, I would like to speak for myself. Here is why I, as a Re-formed and covenantal pastor in the PCA, support Israel. Incidentally, my views are not novel but are held in one way or another by great luminaries of our faith.

I must clarify what I mean for the Bible itself speaks of Israel in several different ways. 10 Jesus said that there were those who said they were Jews but who were not really Jews (Rev 3:9). In Romans 9 we read that not all who are Israel are of Israel. Paul writes, "However, it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring (Rom 9:6-8). Nothing could be clearer than Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, showing the distinction. There are those who are of fleshly Israel who are not of spiritual Israel, the ones who, by the same faith that Abraham had, trust in Jesus Christ as Lord. We read again: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom 2:28-29, KJV).

So, I must, out of my own convictions based on the Scriptures, believe that I (and all who truly call Jesus Savior) am, by adoption, a part of "the Israel of God." According to Paul, we have not "replaced" the old people of God called Israel. We have been "engrafted" into their number. Thus, by using a phrase "replacement theology" to describe this position which has been held by godly Christians since the Biblical era (which includes Irenaeus, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Matthew Henry, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the English and Welsh Puritans, the Scottish Covenanters, the Pilgrims who founded America, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge and all of the Princetonians, the Southern Presbyterian greats such as Henry Thornwell, Benjamin Morgan Palmer, modern pastor-theologians including such familiar names as James Mont-gomery Boice, D. James Kennedy, R. C. Sproul, and entire denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church in America and increasing numbers in other evangelical denominations) is not only uncharitable and divisive, it is simply wrong. I say again, I believe, according to Paul, that Gentile believers have become engrafted into the faith given once and for all to the saints, that one body sometimes called Israel. Paul writes, " …some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, (Rom 11:17). Yet, we must admit that Paul still distinguishes between True Israel and his brethren in the flesh, ethnic Israel, that is, the Hebrews. 11 He not only prays for them, but in a passionate outburst, wishes that he were damned that they might be saved: "I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sor-row and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were ac-cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (Rom 9:1-5).

He goes on to say to Gentiles who are engrafted into this new Israel that we must not "boast" (Rom 11:18) or be "haughty" concerning our new status but we are to remember that God's grace came to us through the old covenant people of God, the Jews. Thus, we should pray and actually expect that the present blindness of so many Jews will not last forever but that many will be engrafted back into True Israel (Rom 11:22-25). When that happens—that is, when all of the elect Gentiles and elect Jews are brought into the faith—then, I believe, Paul is saying that "all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26). I am not the last word on the meaning of a passage that has baffled greater minds than mine. Nevertheless, this is the light I have been given as I read this passage. One thing is for certain. No one, Jew or Gentile, can be saved apart from the name of Jesus Christ. The way Jews will be brought back into the one true fold of God is through the Spirit of God working through the preaching of the gospel. That is the whole message of Romans 10. For that reason, I am for increased outreach ministries to ethnic Jews.

So, I must differentiate, as Paul did, between True Israel—that is, believing Gentiles and Jews together in the one true faith in Jesus Christ, God's promised Messiah—and ethnic Hebrews. Moreover, we must now, as a result of God's providence in history, differentiate between the ancient theocracy of Israel ("Israelites"), the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16, where Paul is writing to Galatian Gentile believers), and the modern state of Israel (Israelis). You can already see how failure to unravel these distinct entities in Scripture, and now in history, can lead to misunderstanding. Thus, we do well to step back and clarify our words before chastising another. Where there are sincere disa-greements, one can at least grant that the situation is not always clear.

But again, I am clear myself, from the Word of God, that the assembly of God's people who trust and believe in the Messiah of God, Jesus, whether in the Old Testament or in the New Testament, are of one and the same spiritual family. I believe in the oneness and unity of the people of God. Some misunderstanding about the church replacing Israel may come from the word "church" itself. The Greek word ecclesia is the word translated into English as "assembly," "church," and sometimes "congregation." It is the word that Stephen assigns to Israel when, in his great sermon before his martyrdom, he calls Israel "the church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38, KJV). We must also recognize that in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Greek word ecclesia is used more than seventy times to translate qa-hal, the Hebrew word for congregation. There is an Old Testament verse that is used in the New Testament that will help us see this. Psalm 22 uses the Hebrew word qa-hal for congregation: "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. Psalms 22:22 (KJV).This same verse appears in Hebrews (note that the Holy Spirit has replaced qa-hal with ecclesia): "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. Hebrews 2:12 (KJV).

In the New Testament, the church, or ecclesia, of Christ is one with the qa-hal of God throughout the Old Testament. These are one people of God who trust in God's Messiah, although living under two different dispensations—Old Testament and New Testament. Having sought to establish this, however, I want to make some statements about what I believe concerning ethnic Israel and the modern state of Israel.

First, I honor non-believing ethnic Hebrew people, no matter what their modern citizenship.
By saying that I honor non-believing Hebrews, I do not mean to say that I am unconcerned about their unregenerate state. Let me be clear: unless they re-pent, they will be eternally lost, just like any other ethnic group failing to be justified through faith alone in Jesus Christ. I honor them in this way: they are descendants of my own spiritual forefathers and mothers, and whether they ad-mit it or not or even care about it or not, we do have some connection.

First, through their ethnic people, God brought forth my Savior Jesus Christ; therefore, I honor them. Second, through them came the covenants and promises that are so dear to us.

Third, through their amazing people came contributions in law, government, poetry, wisdom, and other language arts. On the back of those contributions, those who adopted her worldviews formed the greatest civilizations in history, in my opinion.

Fourth, I honor them in that they form a special object of prayer. When I meet a Jewish person, I am drawn to share Christ with him or her. As I read Romans 11; I sense that God desires that I do this. I marvel at the beautiful grace of God that will graft a Gentile like me into the Israel of God, and use me to share Christ with an ethnic Jew so that they may be brought back in themselves. I believe this will happen more and more, but I do not want to just wait for God to save the Jews without sending someone anymore than I want to just wait for God to save the Indians or the Albanians or the Africans without sending someone. Yet, they are a special people who deserve our prayers and our evangelistic efforts carried out with great sensitivity for injustices that have been done to them in the past due to bad theology and devilish influence.

Second, I admire the modern state of Israel.
As I have said, I differentiate between Israelis, Israelites, ethnic Hebrews of many different nationalities, and the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). I do not believe that the modern state of Israel is the same nation as the ancient Israel of Scripture. Nor do I believe that they are the Israel of God. And I recognize that the modern state of Israel includes many people who are not ethnic Hebrews. My admiration and support for the modern state of Israel is based primarily on my evaluation of their international politics. This is not to say that modern Israel has been blameless in its dealings with other nations and people groups. Rather, it is merely to say that they have generally done a better job than their neighbors at upholding biblical standards of human dignity and justice.

The State of Israel is not as friendly and as open to Christian missionary work as I would hope. But the existence of the modern state of Israel still provides many Christian missionaries with a foothold for evangelizing the Near East. I do not know what role modern Israel will play in God's plan for reaching Jews and Arabs with the gospel, or in helping converted Jews reaching the world for Christ. However, I pray that it will be used to spread the gospel to ethnic Jews and others. In this regard, I suspect that God will surprise us all, as He often does. Should modern Israel become a great missionary-sending nation, it would be a cause of great rejoicing and honor for the name of Jesus!

I also support and stand with the modern state of Israel as they are facing enemies from all sides who would not only destroy them but also the Judeao-Christian heritage we enjoy as well. The threat posed by Islam is greatest in this part of the world. And Israel stands of the front lines of defense against the Mus-lim countries that would destroy and subjugate the peaceful peoples of the world.

Yet, I have my concerns about this state. I am concerned that they not be confused with the one true people of God who have trusted in Jesus Christ. They are a good democracy (not a perfect one, by the way), but they are not a theocracy with Christ ruling them. Theologies that do, in fact, confuse the Israel of God, with the modern democratic state of Israel, may advocate (in their sincere, but sincerely wrong teaching) policies and positions which do not provide for missionary outreach, to Jews as well as Palestinians, or for the support of true believers (of various ethnic backgrounds) in that modern state. This was, in large part, the concern raised by the seminary paper which I signed at Knox Seminary, 12 following a public debate on the subject in evangelical circles, and which was published in Advent, 2002. I have a concern for Jewish and Arab Christians in Israel and for missionary activity to Israel. Simply put, Christians are not fulfilling our missionary task to the Jews there as well as I would desire. I honor Dispen-sationalists for their contributions, but they are not the only voice in evangelical Christianity. I am concerned about teaching which equates a modern democ-racy, not always friendly to Christian missions and evangelism, with the true people of God.

Conclusion
I have sought to differentiate between the Israel of God, which includes Jews and Gentiles, and ethnic Jews themselves. I have also sought to differentiate between the ancient theocracy of Israel and the modern Israeli government and people. I have sought to show that I believe the church of Jesus Christ does not replace Israel but is engrafted into the one true people of God, the Israel of God. Further, I have shown from Scripture that the Greek word used for church is also used for Israel, according to the very words of Stephen in Acts 7:38, and I have appealed to the use of the same word in the Old Testament to translate the assembly or congregation of God's people. I have also stated my hope and expectation for the continued conversion of ethnic Jews to the Lordship of Jesus and my zeal for evangelization of Jewish people as a priority in our churches and denominations today. Moreover, I have shown why I support ethnic Jews as well as modern Israelis.

My prayer is that our churches would all continue to focus on the Word of God, the Great Commission, the Reformed faith of grace alone by faith alone through Christ alone, and that we pray for God to use us to reach Jew and Gentile alike so that "all Israel may be saved." 13 , 14 I end with the words of that famous, irenic Puritan pastor, Richard Baxter (1615—91), whose heart I would want to emulate when I use these words:"In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity."

Notes:
1. Unless otherwise stated, all quoted Scripture is from the English Standard Version. The author grants permission to reproduce and distribute this sermon on the condition that it is repro-duced in full and proper citation is given.

2. A primer for Dispensationalism is Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism, Rev. ed. (Dallas,: Dallas Seminary Press, 1951). For a critical review of the movement, from a Presbyterian perspective, see William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today, by William E. Cox (Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1966.: 1966), John H. Gerstner, A Primer on Dispensationalism (Phillipsburg, N.J. Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1982.: 1982). See also Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001). For a presentation of Covenant Theology see the classic O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980). As Covenant Theology relates to the matter of Israel, see O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God : Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 2000).

3. It should be stated, that there is large disagree-ment within Dispensationalist groups concerning major tenets of older claims. For a review of these views see Herbert W. Bateman, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism : A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999). See also Darrell Bock, "Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small 'D'," The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 3 (1998).

4. There is a fine article (but not peer reviewed) on the movement at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism. An overview of the tenets of Dispensationalism may also be found at www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html. One reputable Southern Baptist web site (The Founder's Conference) offers a polemical review of the history of Dispensationalism in America. It is located at www.founders.org/FJ09/article1.html. See again: Bock, "Why I Am a Dis-pensationalist with a Small 'D'."

5. Fellow members of the Evangelical Theological Society, who teach at Dallas Theological Seminary, have written about trends within Dispensationalism that are causing them to come closer to the Reformed position. I would refer the reader to Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, Ill.: BridgePoint, 1993).

6. I greatly appreciate the magnanimous study pre-sented by a former Dispensationalist Premillennialist who now espouses another position. See Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids, Mich. Leicester, England: Baker Books; Inter-Varsity Press, 2003).

7. See my Michael Milton, "Following Ben: Expository Preaching in the Pastoral Setting," Preaching Journal 20, no. 4 (2005).

8. "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (Acts 17.11 NIV).

9. It should be noted that I gave my views of this matter before the Tennessee Valley Presbytery, as all PCA ministers are required to do when transferring between our pres-byteries or being ordained. Dispensationalism is not a view allowed by teaching elders in the Presbyterian Church in America. I continue to hold that this system of doctrine, as taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith and its Larger and Shorter Catechisms, is the very teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

10. See Robertson, The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.

11. I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace (Romans 11:1-5),

12. See the seminary paper at www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/ WittenbergDoor/index.html.

13. To that end, I fully support the Willowbank Statement (see www.lcje.net/willowbank.html), which is promoted by such ministries as Jews for Jesus (see www.forjewsforjesus.org/about/brief_history.html) and the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (see www.lcje.net/index.html).

14. See also my academic article on the dangers of an unbalanced eschatological emphasis in the ministry, Michael Milton, "The Pastoral Predicament of Vavasor Powell (1617-1670): Eschatological Fervor and Its Relationship to the Pastoral Ministry," The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43, no. 3 (2000). Located at www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/43/43-3/43-3-pp517-527_JETS.pdf.

References Cited
Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001.

Bateman, Herbert W. Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism : A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999.

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism. Wheaton, Ill.: BridgePoint, 1993.

Bock, Darrell. "Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small 'D'." The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 3 (1998): 387-98.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Dispensationalism. Rev. ed. Dallas,: Dallas Seminary Press, 1951.

Cox, William E. Amillennialism Today, by William E. Cox. Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1966., 1966.

Gerstner, John H. A Primer on Dispensationalism. Phillipsburg, N.J. Presby-terian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1982., 1982.

Milton, Michael. "Following Ben: Expository Preaching in the Pastoral Setting." Preaching Journal 20, no. 4 (2005).

———. "The Pastoral Predicament of Vavasor Powell (1617-1670): Eschatological Fervor and Its Relationship to the Pastoral Ministry." The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43, no. 3 (2000): 517-27.

Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism : Understanding the End Times. Grand Rapids, Mich. Leicester, England: Baker Books; Inter-Varsity Press, 2003.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

———. The Israel of God : Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 2000.

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

True Teaching on the True Israel Nov 26, 2023 13:53:13 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 13:53:13 GMT -5

Books I've Written and Published Essays

“John MacArthur on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Israel and Hermeneutics: A Few Comments”

In April 2007, I made my way through Dr. MacArthur’s controversial lecture, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist” (given at the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church, on March 7, 2007). The lecture can be ordered here (Click here: MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing).

Regrettably, I am just now getting around to completing my response–my day job kept getting in the way. Better late than never, perhaps?

As we have come to expect of him, Dr. MacArthur spoke with great passion, covered much ground quickly, and had a great deal to say. No question, Dr. MacArthur commands authority. One can easily see why Dr. MacArthur is so widely-respected. When it comes to the gospel, he’s on the side of the angels. When it comes to eschatology, however, I must beg to differ.

As a Reformed amillennarian (who was raised a dispensationalist) I had a powerful gut-level reaction to Dr. MacArthur’s lecture. While this lecture was well-received by the friendly and largely dispensational home court audience to whom it was delivered, surely Dr. MacArthur knew that his words would amount to picking a fight with those Reformed amillennarians who may have been present. This was not the playful jab that conference speakers often take at one another at such events. No, this was a warning of sorts–a shot fired across the bow.

My take is that this was MacArthur’s attempt to go from being on defense to switching over to offense. Despite the self-assurance with which the lecture was delivered, in many ways, the lecture seemed like a rather desperate attempt to stem the rising tide of interest in Reformed amillennialism in the Reformed-evangelical conference circuit, where many are now openly rejecting MacArthur’s beloved dispensationalism. At least that’s how it seemed to me.

As I worked my way through the specific points raised by Dr. MacArthur, it was very hard not to become exasperated. The lecture seemed out of place at such a conference and would have been a much better fit at a conference devoted to dispensational eschatology. At least the audience would have known what was coming in advance.

More to the point, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist” was a rather strident attack upon something that I as a Reformed amillennarian don’t believe. In fact, it was hard to recognize my own position as Dr. MacArthur made his case. Sadly, this was clearly an attack upon something that Dr. MacArthur truly believes that Reformed amillennarians believe. The same circumstance was true, no doubt, for those historic premillennarians, who likewise embrace Calvinism and arrived at the “Shepherd’s Conference” only to be told that in order to be consistent to Scripture and God's sovereignty, they too must embrace MacArthur’s dispensationalism in addition to being premillennial.

That Dr. MacArthur is a premillennial dispensationalist comes as no surprise. He has every right to state and defend his position, especially before his home church. But I am sure that many in the audience gathered for the Shepherd’s Conference were taken aback by the fact that he picked this particular forum--especially when a number of Reformed amillennarians were present and when several well-known amillenarians were invited to speak at the conference–to make the point that unless you adopt the dispensational hermeneutic you are unable to understand much of the Bible (certainly the eschatological portions).

With a rather striking measure of audacity, Dr. MacArthur went on to argue that unless you are a dispensationalist, you cannot be a “consistent Calvinist.” Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that as soon as live-blogger Tim Challies posted his initial report about MacArthur’s lecture, emails began to fly and the blogosphere went nuts! “Did you hear what MacArthur said about Calvinism?” “Did you hear what MacArthur said about amillennialism?” “Did you hear what he said about Calvin?” Thankfully, things have now calmed down a bit and we can look at these matters more objectively.

As I see it, here’s the issue. Dr. MacArthur picked this fight. His contention that unless you see Scripture through dispensational eyes, you cannot be a “self-respecting Calvinist” surprised many–Reformed amillennarians and historic premillennarians alike. Without the dispensational lens–says MacArthur–you will misunderstand much of the Bible. The latter point is part of the long-standing debate between amillennarians and dispensationalists (and no surprise), but the former comes as big news to those of us who are confessional Calvinists who think MacArthur’s brand of dispensational premillennialism is antithetical to any historic or confessional form of Reformed or Calvinistic theology.

Yet, here is John MacArthur telling confessional Calvinists that unless they give up their amillennialism, they cannot be consistently “Calvinists.” The sheer audacity of that charge is striking.

Given the length of his address and number of issues raised (and since many–including me–have written extensively on the subject of eschatology elsewhere), rather than reply to every point, a few representative examples must suffice. What follows then, is my response to some of the key points Dr. MacArthur raises in his lecture.

I. Dr. MacArthur on Premillennialism and Calvinism:

“Now that leads to my title: `Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist’ [laughter and applause] Now it's too late for Calvin, but it's not too late for the rest of you. And if Calvin were here he would join our movement. [laughter]”

“But bottom line here, of all people on the planet to be pre-millennialist it should be Calvinists; those who love sovereign election. Let's leave amillennialism for the Arminians. It's perfect! [laughter] It's ideal. It's a no-brainer. God elects nobody and preserves nobody. Perfect! Arminians make great amillennialists. It's consistent. But not for those who live and breathe the rarified air of sovereign electing grace. That makes no sense. We can leave amillennialism to the process theologians . . . or the ‘openness' people who think God is becoming what he will be, and he's getting better because as every day goes by he gets more information. And as he gets more information he's figuring out whether or not in fact he can keep some of the promises he made without having to adjust all of them based upon lack of information when he originally made them. Let’s leave amillennialism to the charismatics in the semi-Pelagians and other sorts of go in and out of salvation willy-nilly; makes sense for their theology . . .”

_________________________

Upon hearing the lecture, it is apparent that Dr. MacArthur is being facetious when he claims Calvin for the dispensationalists. That’s a good thing because Calvin was very clear where he stood on chiliasm (millennialism). “This fiction is too puerile to need or to deserve refutation. Nor do they receive any countenance from the Apocalypse, from which it is known that they extracted a gloss for their error, (Revelation 20:4,) since the thousand years there mentioned refer not to the eternal blessedness of the Church, but only to the various troubles which await the Church militant in this world” (Institutes 3.25.5).

As Richard Muller pointed out back in 1993, there is every likelihood that John MacArthur's "Calvinism" would probably not be recognized by Calvin himself (See Richard Muller's response to attempts like MacArthur's to co-opt the term "Reformed," Click here: Riddleblog - "How Many Points?").

Regrettably, Dr. MacArthur is not above using the fallacy of generalization to argue that amillennialism (based upon his faulty understanding of the amillennial position on Israel–more on this below) is more consistent with Arminianism, process theology and the semi-Pelagianism of much of the Charismatic movement. This is simply a cheap shot. Dr. MacArthur surely knows that it is confessional Calvinists (most of whom are amillennial) who have been the most outspoken critics of the open theism and the semi-Pelagianism of Arminianism, now making its way deeper into the evangelical blood stream.

It is rather ironic that the authors of the Canons of the Synod of Dort–who gave us the so-called five points of Calvinism in opposition to the first Arminians–were, with one exception, all non-premillennarians. There is no reason whatsoever to think that their amillennial eschatology ever played any role in the development of Arminianism. What’s more, the Arminians themselves never argued that this was the case. Frankly, this is an outlandish and ill-informed statement.

II. John MacArthur on Israel and Hermeneutics:

“The irony is that those who most celebrate the sovereign grace of election regarding the church, and its inviolable place in God's purpose from predestination to glorification, and those who most aggressively and militantly defend the truth of promise and fulfillment, those who are the advocates of election being divine, unilateral, unconditional, and irrevocable by nature for the church, unashamedly deny the same for elect Israel. That is a strange division. As it does, the perpetuity of the elect church to salvation glory, so the Scripture in similar language and by promises from the same God, affirms the perpetuity of ethnic Israel to a future salvation of a generation of Jews that will fulfill all divine promises given to them by God. In both cases this is the work of, and the result of, divine sovereign election. . .”

“Now all that leads us to this: if you get Israel right you will get eschatology right. If you don't get Israel right you will never get eschatology right. Never. And you'll migrate from one view to another just depending on the last book you read or the last lecture you heard . . . . If you get eschatology right it's because you get Israel right. You get Israel right when you get the Old Testament covenants and promises right. You get the Old Testament covenants and promises right when you get the interpretation of Scripture right. You get interpretation of Scripture right when you're faithful to a legitimate hermeneutic and God's integrity is upheld. Get your hermeneutics right, you'll get the Old Testament promises right. Get promises right, you'll get Israel right. Get Israel right, you'll get eschatology right. The Bible calls God the God of Israel over 200 times. The God of Israel. There are over 2,000 references to Israel in Scripture, not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 which is the only two passages that amillennialists go to trying to convince us that that cancels out the other 2,000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers; the Israel of God. Israel always means Israel, never means anything but Israel. Seventy three New Testament uses of Israel always mean Israel.”

________________________

While I'll respond to MacArthur's argument about the number of times the Bible speaks of Israel a bit later, at this point let me just say that Dr. MacArthur is absolutely correct about one thing: Get your hermeneutics right and you will get your eschatology right. But here’s precisely where we part ways with Dr. MacArthur and his dispensational presupposition that because national Israel lies at the heart of all biblical eschatology and covenants, the Old Testament promises made to national Israel are the hermeneutical center of Scripture. As an amillennarian, I assign that place to Jesus Christ, who, the New Testament tells me, is the true Israel.

Understanding the difference between the amillennial hermeneutic and the dispensational hermeneutic is the key to understanding the essence of this debate. Every major dispensational theologian from Walvoord to Pentecost to Ryrie to MacArthur himself, insists that God has two distinct redemptive programs–one for national Israel and one for the Gentiles. MacArthur clearly affirms this dispensational presupposition in the quote above.

Reformed amillennarians reject this understanding of God's redemptive purposes. God’s purpose is not to save two distinct peoples (divided by ethnicity), but to save his people (the elect), a multitude which no man can number (Revelation 7:9), and which includes each and every one of those whom God has chosen, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul addresses this very point when discussing God’s redemptive purpose for Gentiles and national Israel. Here, Paul flat-out contradicts the dispensational assertion that God has distinct redemptive purposes for national Israel and for the church. According Paul, God’s purpose in the New Covenant is to remove the ethnic distinctions between Jew and Gentile (between Israel and the church) which had been dividing them. Paul says that Jesus came to tear down the barrier wall which formerly divided the two, in order to make the two peoples into one so as to form Jew and Gentile together into the one living temple of the Lord–the church. In this spiritual temple, Christ is the chief cornerstone, and the foundation is the prophets and apostles.

While dispensationalists will concede that this is God’s purpose for the present age, they say Israel’s distinct role resurfaces again after the Rapture when the Gentile church is removed from the earth. This dual redemptive purpose then carries on throughout the millennial age after Christ comes back. If true, this means that it is Christ’s purpose to make the two peoples one is only temporary. God intends to divide Israel (ethnic Jews) again from the Gentiles after the resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11).

Of course, this makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, such a view forces us to see the future millennial age as something completely distinct from Christ’s redemptive purpose under the New Covenant. On these terms, the as-yet future millennium marks a return to Old Testament types and shadows and ignores the fact that the reality is Christ. This not only means that redemptive history takes a giant U-turn after Christ comes back, amounting to a return to the types and shadows which preceded the coming of the Messiah, but it completely ignores the very thing Christ came to do–make the two peoples one by removing all ethnic divisions which previously divided believers! The progress of redemption takes us from promise (types and shadows) to fulfillment (anti-types), not from promise, to temporary (or transitional) fulfillment, and then finally back to the types and shadows.

This is why a Christ-centered hermeneutic changes everything and why this hermeneutic lies at the heart of the differences between Reformed amillennialism and dispensationalism. As Bob Strimple (the former president of Westminster Seminary California, and now professor emeritus of systematic theology) points out in a lecture he often gives on this very topic, there are a number of reasons why Israel’s role in the Old Testament was preparatory to the coming Christ, and can therefore cannot serve as the hermeneutical center of Scripture. The fact is that Christ comes to fulfill (literally) all of the Old Testament promises, not to temporarily put them aside, only to return to them in a future millennium. Strimple bases his view that Christ is the true Israel on the following biblical arguments:

1). Isaiah’s servant songs have a double referent that has long baffled Jewish commentators. On the one hand, they refer to Israel, God’s chosen one and servant (41:8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 49:3). On the other, they seem also to refer to some individual (42:1-4). These prophesies are interpreted by the New Testament as referring to Christ (Matthew 8:17 and Acts 8:30-35)

2). Matthew sees a double referent in Hosea 11:1, ("Out of Egypt I called my son")

3). Paul identifies Christ, not physical Israel, as Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:16). Galatians 3:7 and Romans 4:11, 16, moreover, identify the church as Abraham’s offspring.

4). Henceforth, we are in Christ the true Israel: Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 2:28-29, and Philippians 3:3.

5). The Old Covenant is obsolete, having been superseded by the New: Hebrews 8:8-12 identifies the new covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:33-34) with the covenant instituted by Christ with the church. Most importantly, Hebrews 8:13 declares the old covenant obsolete and passing away. This makes impossible the dispensational view of Ezekiel 40-48 as a reinstitution of temple sacrifice.

6). The upshot is that the Old Testament did not see how its own prophesies were to be fulfilled - indeed, it could not prior to Christ. The New Testament authors were able to interpret the Old Testament in the light of His coming of the new covenant that He instituted. So should we.

As Strimple points out, this means that Jesus is the true Israel, and that all Scripture–especially its prophetic sections–must be read through a Christ-centered hermeneutic, not a dispensational one which centers upon national Israel.

In his lecture, MacArthur makes the point that since God elects Israel, and since “Israel means Israel,” any other approach to eschatology destroys the perspicuity of the Old Testament. Yes, Dr. MacArthur is right that Israel always means Israel, but that’s not the point.

When the writers of the New Testament see Israel in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ, they now see that the nation of Israel and the Sinaitic covenant which established it, were intended by God to point ahead to the coming of Jesus. That’s what Paul is getting at in Galatians 3:19-25, when he speaks of the law as intended by God to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. This is because the law exposes our sin and like a school-master drives us to Christ.

But this truth was largely hidden in the types and shadows of the Old Testament era in redemptive history because Christ had not yet come and the ultimate purpose of the law could not yet be seen. But this same truth is impossible to escape after Jesus steps out of type and shadow onto the center stage of redemption (Galatians 4:4-5). It Jesus who now tells us the true purpose of the Old Covenant–“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me" (John 5:39). This is not amillennial "spiritualizing" of Scripture, it is the method of biblical interpretation taught us by Jesus and his apostles!

III. Is the Old Testament Amillennial?

“Is the Old Testament amillennial? Now a note here please: it is not legitimate to interpret the Old Testament as secondary to the New Testament as primary. Okay? That's not legitimate. Otherwise, the Old Testament was literally darkness not light. If you say that the Old Testament cannot be rightly interpreted apart from the New Testament then you have denied the perspicuity of the Old Testament.”

_____________________________

MacArthur’s rhetorical question (“is the Old Testament amillennial?”) and his subsequent qualification (it is not legitimate to treat the Old Testament as “secondary”), is another critical point of contention and gets right to the heart of the debate.

Here is the basic hermeneutical question: “Does the Old Testament tell us what the New Testament means (even though Christ has not yet come during the time of Old Testament revelation), or does the New Testament interpret the Old Testament?” MacArthur argues for the former, while Reformed amillennarians the latter.

Reformed amillennarians have never argued that the Old Testament is “amillennial” per se. Let’s be clear about that. We have argued that the promise of a land given to Israel is itself typological of a heavenly kingdom which was inconceivable in the days of the patriarchs and Moses. But we only know this because the author of Hebrews tells us as much. In other words, the New Testament tells us what the things promised in the Old Testament truly mean.

The true glories of what God promised cannot be seen until the coming of Christ–although when the New Testament looks back in this, we learn that Abraham “got it” because although he was promised a land in Palestine (Genesis 12:1-3), by faith he knew that the reality for the people of God (Jew or Gentile) was not found in any earthly promise, including the promised land. “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:8-10).

The point is that we could never possibly understand the promise in its fullness if we regarded the original promise in Genesis 12:1-3 as the hermeneutical key to determine how we understand such things even in the light of future (and greater) revelatory light.

Dispensationalists have this completely backwards. They say the Old Testament tells us what the promise is–a land in Palestine. Therefore, we must take this literally (even if the New Testament tells us otherwise) or else we undermine the authority of Scripture.

We say the New Testament clarifies and amplifies the Old Testament promises in light of Christ. It is not the amillennarian, but the apostle Paul who “spiritualizes” the land promise by extending the land promised to Abraham to the whole world after the coming of Christ (Romans 4:13). It is not the amillennarian, but the author of Hebrews who tells us that the promise of a land in Palestine was typological of the heavenly city which Abraham desired because he saw that the land pointed him to something even greater. Now that Christ has come, we can see why redemptive history unfolds in the manner that it does. Promise gives way to fulfillment. Types and shadows give way to biblical reality. And while we are speaking of the Old Testament, didn't Joshua himself tell us that the typological promise of the land had already been fulfilled (Joshua 21:43), leading us to expect the New Testament to universalize the land promise in light of the coming of Christ?

At this point, the critical question raised by Dr. MacArthur’s comment above is “just why did national Israel reject Jesus’ messianic kingship and thereby come under the covenant curse?”

Jesus was rejected because the kingdom he came to bring Israel was not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36; and in Romans 14:17 Paul tells us that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”). Israel rejected Jesus because they were seeking a national/political kingdom tied to the land promised to Abraham and to the typological kingship of David. They were not looking for that spiritual kingdom defined in the parables of Matthew 13 which spreads into the whole world (cf. Matthew 13:32). No, they wanted to be a great nation with a king as they had been in the past, and this meant a defeat of Rome.

In other words, the Jews wanted a geo-political kingdom much like that described by the dispensationalists as characteristic of the future millennial age. Blinded by a zeal without knowledge (Romans 10:2), a trust in personal righteousness instead of that provided by God through faith (cf. Philippians 3:3-11) and because of the national embarrassment and harsh realities of Roman occupation, when Jesus didn’t offer or promise the Jews such a kingdom, they rejected him.

In this we see why the Reformed Confessions condemned the proto-dispensationalism of the Reformation era in the harshest of terms. “We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in 2 Thess., ch. 2, and 2 Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different” (Second Helvetic Confession 11.10).

This condemnation is not a racial and therefore an anti-Semitic issue–“these people are wrong because they are Jews.” Rather it is a hermeneutical matter. Christians have two testaments, not just the Old Covenant. Those who hold to “Jewish dreams” are condemned for the error of allowing the typological kingdom found in the Old Testament to serve as the hermeneutical fulcrum of the New Testament. Such people cannot make sense of Scripture because they do not see Christ as the sum and substance of all biblical Revelation.

The whole point of the biblical proof texts cited in the confession, along with the parables in Matthew 13 just considered, is that the gospel is preached throughout this age until the harvest, which is the second coming of Christ (Matthew 13:49-50). The kingdom is clearly consummated at that time, but not before. But it is also clear that the kingdom is not postponed until the millennium, after Jesus returns. Until that day, the kingdom remains a present reality tied to word and sacrament, and is the very foundation for the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20).

It is just plain wrong to assert that Reformed amillennarians somehow believe that the New Testament is “primary” and the Old Testament is “secondary.” We believe that both are equally the word of God. But from the examples we have already seen, it is clear that the Old Testament is the story of Christ hidden in type, shadow and promise. The reason we know this is because the New Testament repeatedly tells us that’s the case–that’s the whole point of fulfilled prophecy and passages like Ephesians 2:11-12 and Hebrews 11:8-10 cited above!

The Old Testament repeatedly promises a redeemer and exhorts Israel to look for him (e.g. Deuteronomy 18:18; 2 Samuel 7:11-16), while the New Testament shows us who that redeemer is and how he fulfills these Old Testament expectations. The pattern we see in the two testaments of Scripture is the movement from promise (Old Testament) to fulfillment (New Testament), from shadow and type to reality. This is the hermeneutic given us in Scripture itself. Yet, this is the very thing dispensationalists like Dr. MacArthur tell us to ignore.

While Dr. MacArthur believes the Old Testament remains darkness if we don’t see Israel as the hermeneutical crux, we believe that is only through the light of Christ that the Old Testament truly comes into proper focus.

Furthermore, to describe the matter in terms of “primary” and “secondary” as though Reformed amillennarians depreciate the Old Testament and downplay the role of Israel in the New Testament (and therefore in our eschatology) is grossly inaccurate. I am unashamedly a Christian and not a Jew. Jesus and the apostles tell me what the Old Testament said (in type and shadow) about the coming of Christ and his kingdom. To view the Old Testament in this way does not in the slightest deny the perspicuity of the Old Testament. Rather we affirm that the essence of the Old Testament is the revelation of Jesus Christ hidden in type and shadow. How do we know that, you might ask? Well, no less than Jesus himself taught us that in Luke 24:27 when Jesus gave a Bible study to two of his disciples walking along the road to Emmaus. “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” It was Jesus who said that the Old Testament bore witness to him. It was Jesus who taught us to read the Old Testament in light of his coming.

Therefore, the Christ-centered hermeneutic of Reformed amillennialism–in which the New Testament interprets the Old ( type, shadow and promise pointing to Christ)–was that view taught by none other than Jesus himself. This is why a Christ-centered hermeneutic is so important and why the debate with dispensationalists is so critical. One of us is badly mistaken and misreading much of Scripture–and I sure don't think it is the Reformed amillennarian.

As I mentioned earlier, one issue raised by Dr. MacArthur as an argument in his favor, actually proves my point. At first glance, its rather impressive that the Bible mentions Israel some 2000 times and each time the word appears, “Israel always means Israel.” But when you think about it, MacArthur’s argument very quickly unravels and this actually becomes a strong argument for the amillennial interpretation of redemptive history.

By MacArthur’s own admission, Israel is mentioned some 1927 times in the Old Testament, and only 73 times in the New Testament. That’s precisely what you would expect if Jesus Christ fulfills the promises made by God to Israel because he is the true Israel! The focus upon national Israel very naturally gives way to a focus upon Christ and his church, which is exactly what happens in the New Testament.

Most of these New Testament references to Israel occur in the gospels when Jesus is confronting the Pharisees and others who are in the process of rejecting Jesus’ messianic kingship. Luke mentions Israel a number of times in Acts, almost always in reference to Jewish opposition to the preaching of Christ. Israel is rarely mentioned in the epistles–most often in Romans 9-11, which is the only place in the New Testament where Paul specifically speaks of the future of Israel in redemptive history.

In Romans 9-11, Paul describes in rather big-picture terms the role of Israel in redemptive history, now that Christ has come. The presence of a believing remnant enables Paul to argue that God is not yet finished with Israel. In fact, Paul speaks of a time when all Israel will be saved (11:25-26). But when all Israel is saved, it is vital to notice that this occurs only because Israel is grafted back into the righteous root, who is Christ. There is not a word here about a millennial kingdom, two distinct redemptive plans for Jew and Gentile, Israel returning to the land promised to Abraham, nor a seven-year tribulation. In fact, none of the key dispensational distinctives are mentioned in the very text where you think they would be mentioned, if these things were part of New Testament eschatology. God will once again show mercy on Israel so they come to Christ in faith. Therefore, whatever the salvation of all Israel entails in Romans 9-11, Paul is referring to Jews becoming Christians! Not a hint here of dispensational notions of two redemptive purposes, even though Jews and Gentiles are treated as distinct ethnic groups.

IV. Israel and “Replacement Theology”

“Honestly, I rarely hear somebody preach on the Old Testament and interpret the Old Testament the way a person a living at the time it was written would have interpreted it. We can use it as an illustration. We can use it to elucidate it. We can use it as an example. These things are written, right, as examples Paul told the Corinthians. But it has to have its own meaning to its own people; it must have clarity and perspicuity. And if you say all those promises to Israel really were to the Church they were meaningless and unintelligible to them."

"Replacement theology this is called, by the way, and scholastically often referred to as supersessionism. It demands that the Old Testament promises be viewed through the lens of the New Testament. It also strikes a strange dichotomy since all the curses promised Israel came to Israel , right? — literally — and they're still coming. If you wonder whether the curses and the Old Testament were literal, they're going on right now. Israel right now is not under divine protection. They are under the promise of God that they will be perpetuated as an ethnic people, but this current, this current group of Jews that live in the world today and in the nation Israel are not now under divine protection. They're apostate. They've rejected their Messiah. They are under divine chastening. But they are still a people and will be to the end. What a staggering apologetic that is for the truthfulness of scripture. You can't abandon that without a huge loss of confidence in Scripture.”

___________________________

So . . . in light of our prior discussion, why is it such a gross error to insist that all the Old Testament promises be seen through the lens of the New Testament? Isn't that what the New Testament tells us to do? And how does seeing God keep and fulfill every one of his promises in Christ made to national Israel, bring about a huge loss of confidence in the authority of Scripture?

To make these points stick and give them some rhetorical flourish, at this point MacArthur resorts to pulling the dispensational “trump card.” This is to accuse the Reformed of embracing “replacement theology,” wherein the church supposedly replaces national Israel in the purposes of God. According to dispensationalists, this opens the door to the two great amillennial evils--a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and anti-Semitism.

As far as anti-Semitism goes, let me just say that racism in any form is a sin and must be repented of. Let me also say that the Reformed (especially the Dutch Reformed) have a rather illustrious history when it comes to rescuing Jews from the clutches of the Nazis during WWII. I know of at least three families in Dutch Reformed Churches now living in Southern California who risked everything to rescue numerous Jews from certain death. Such people (although there are sadly fewer of them, given our chronological distance from the war) are common in these circles. So, on a practical level, the charge that Reformed Christianity leads to anti-Semitism seems laughable. But this is, after all, merely anecdotal and not a biblical argument.

Please, Dr. MacArthur, tell me how it is that preaching Christ to Jews and showing them from their own Scriptures that Christ was the promised one, is anti-Semitic and undercuts biblical authority? Please tell me how preaching that Jesus Christ fulfills all the promises made to God's people somehow weakens biblical authority and our witness to Jews? Is Christ not the light of the world, and the one in whom is found all the riches and treasures of heaven? How does preaching that God keeps his promises in Christ, undermine Jewish evangelism?

In fact, is this not what precisely Peter did on Pentecost Sunday when he showed the Jews how the Davidic kingship in the Old Testament (2 Samuel 7) pointed ahead to Christ's Ascension to God's right hand? So much for Jesus returning to the types of the Old Testament and sitting on a throne in Jerusalem in an earthly millennium--Peter sees the events of Pentecost as the fulfillment of a number of Old Testament promises. There is no hint here of a return to types and shadows in a future millennium. It seems to me that this is Peter's answer to the question the disciples themselves asked Jesus in Acts 1:8 about a hoped-for future restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Once the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon all flesh at Pentecost, Christ's kingship can now be seen for what it is--not bound to one land or nation and which spreads to the very ends of the earth through the preaching of the gospel. Before Pentecost, the disciples could not possibly understand what a true restoration of Israel's kingdom would entail. Now they see that their expectations of a national kingdom grossly underestimated what God had actually promised. Christ's kingship and his ascension to God's right hand, is what God promised to Israel. Jesus now rules and reigns over all, since his is the name which is above every other name.

As for the accusation that we Reformed amillennarians hold to "replacement theology," I don’t know of a single Reformed amillennarian who identifies themselves as a "replacement" theologian. Now, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any, but it does indicate that this is a label slapped on us by those who disagree with our eschatology. But this is not (and never has been) how we identify ourselves.

Given all the "replacement theology" charges made by popular dispensational writers like John Hagee, it is sad that this same charge now comes from Dr. MacArthur. Let me put it simply so as not to be misunderstood. Reformed amillenniarians do not believe that the church "replaces" Israel. Repeat, we do not believe that the church replaces Israel.

Rather, we do believe that there is one people of God, the elect. In the Old Testament most of the elect are members of the covenant line, culminating the formation of national Israel at Mt. Sinai–although there is some evidence of true believers outside the covenant people (Melchizedek and those who truly repented in Ninevah come to mind). Likewise, there is much biblical evidence that unbelievers are present within the national covenant, hence the distinction made between the visible and invisible church.

As I have argued in this response and elsewhere, the national/temporal promises of a land, a temple, a priesthood, the sacrifices and so on, made to Israel under the old covenant actually point to something far greater (heavenly promises) and which are fulfilled in Christ. Thus under the New Covenant believers are now called out from among all nations (including Israel) to belong to Christ's church, which is the visible manifestation of the New Covenant people of God.

Therefore, Israel is not “replaced” by the church. Rather, the people of God (believing Jews and Gentiles) in the Old Covenant era are vastly supplemented by believers from every nation tribe and tongue in the New Covenant. This is not “replacement theology.” It should be called “expansion theology” since the people of God become so numerous after the coming of Christ that the multitude in heaven cannot be counted (Revelation 7:9-10). In fact, that multitude encompasses people from the ends of the earth, including many ethnic Jews who are among the elect and believe in Jesus, because Jesus Christ has been revealed to them by a gracious God.

V. Conclusion:

Along with countless others, I am very grateful for John MacArthur's bold and vocal defense of the Gospel. I am also grateful for his years of faithful service and willingness to tackle controversy in the evangelical church. But how I wish that Dr. MacArthur had chosen not to pick this fight. Sadly, he did.

This is hard to say, but in his lecture Dr. MacArthur set up and repeatedly attacked a straw man. His was a pyrrhic victory over a phantom foe.

If you are a dispensationalist, my plea is that you don't repeat the arguments Dr. MacArthur used in this lecture. Disagree as you will, you do have the responsibility to accurately represent the Reformed amillennial position. Dr. MacArthur did not.

My suggestion is to read the books listed here (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - A Quick List of Amillennial Resources in Light of MacArthur's Charges), and then after doing so, make up your own mind. Interact with amillennial writers, weigh our arguments in light of Scripture, and see if we are truly guilty of the charges leveled at us by Dr. MacArthur.

While you may not be convinced of Reformed amillennialism (hopefully, you will!), at least you'll be better informed and realize that Reformed amillennarians are not anti-Semites who don't take the Bible literally or seriously.

Copyright © 2020, Kim Riddlebarger. All rights reserved.

Last Edit: Nov 26, 2023 13:54:32 GMT -5 by Admin

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

True Teaching on the True Israel Nov 26, 2023 14:00:03 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 14:00:03 GMT -5

Are There Two Peoples of God or One? (eBook)
BY MONERGISM
IN EPUB, MOBI AND HTML FORMATS
Are there two peoples of God or one?

We believe the bible teaches there is one people of God with different roles in redemptive history - the Jews occupying preeminence since they are the first-born (Exodus 4:22) - the title (first-born) also given to Jesus (Col. 1:15-21; Rom 8:29; Heb 1:6; Rev 1:5). But the New Testament Church is simply a continuation and expansion of the people of God in the Old Testament (John 12;32), and though they are wild olive shoots they are grafted into the same tree whose roots are in Christ. The Apostle Paul declares that though Gentiles "WERE at one time ...alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise [but in Christ they] are no longer strangers and aliens [to the covenants], but are fellow citizens [of the commonwealth] with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone...fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel." (Eph 2:12, 19; 3:6). (emphasis mine)

Likewise, the covenant of grace which God once made with Abraham to ethnic Israel was not abolished (but fulfilled in Christ), and there remains in that covenant a seed of blessing to ethic Israel (Rom. 11: 25-29). Though the Jews are now (due to a partial hardening) mostly alienated from the gospel, yet as Calvin says, "God is not unmindful of the covenant He made with their fathers" (fulfilled in Christ) which testifies that "He loves that nation" (Deut 29:4, 30:6) and in Romans 11: 27, 29 declares "that the grace of divine calling cannot be made void." After "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" He will deliver on this promise by pouring out His Spirit upon ethnic Israel and restoring them en masse by joining many of them to Christ making them partakers of all His redemptive blessings.

One of the finest Reformed scholars of 20th century said,

"If we keep in mind the theme of this chapter [ Rom. 11] and the sustained emphasis on the restoration of Israel, there is no other alternative than to conclude that the proposition, 'all Israel shall be saved' is to be interpreted in terms of the fullness, the receiving, the in-grafting of Israel as a people, the restoration of Israel to gospel favour and blessing and the correlative turning of Israel from unbelief to faith and repentance. . . . In a word, it is the salvation of the mass of Israel that the apostle [Paul] affirms … While it is true that in respect of the privileges accruing from Christ's accomplishments there is now no longer Jew or Gentile and the Gentiles "are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus throughout the gospel" (Eph. 3:6), yet it does not follow that Israel no longer fulfills any particular design in the realization of God; worldwide saving purpose ... Israel are both “enemies” and “beloved” at the same time, enemies as regards the gospel, beloved as regards the election. . . “Beloved” thus means that God has not suspended or rescinded his relation to Israel as his chosen people in terms of the covenants made with their fathers. -- John Murray (1898-1975) in The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, p. 99

In contrast to Dispensationalism, covenant theologians do not believe the Bible teaches a literal millennium where the temple will be rebuilt, nor will there be a re-establishment of the Law under the reign of the Davidic king over other nations. That language in apocalyptic literature is meant, rather, to be read Christocentrically, as symbols and types pointing to Christ (John 5:9, 33-47; Luke 24:27; Matt 5:17-18; 2 Cor 1:20; Heb 9:12; 7:23-24). We believe, rather, in the age to come when Jesus returns, He will resurrect the dead,of both good and evil, there will be judgment and there a new heaven and a new earth prepared for his bride, which Jesus purchased by his blood and consists of both Jews and Gentiles. But note (and I quote) "There will be no temple in the city for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb." (Rev 21:22.) In the coming age, Jesus will be our all in all, and He will reign forever.

The idea that law and sacrifice is re-established, clearly seems to not only go backwards in redemptive history but also reminds us of the warning the Father delivers on the mount of transfiguration where Jesus glorious appearance was like the sun. Jesus was talking to Moses and Elijah about his departure and what he would soon accomplish in Jerusalem (Luke 9:28-36) Suddenly the disciples wanted to make tents for these Old Testament prophets but the Father broken in to speak, diverting the gaze of the disciples from Moses (who represented the law) and Elijah (who represented the prophets) and said, "this is my Son, listen to him" why? because Jesus is the source of all Old Testament revelation - a revelation which he says bears witness about him (Luke 24:27; John 5:39) and who fulfilled every particular of it (Matt 5:17; 17:1-12; Luke 9:28:36). In Christ, God has not just spoken to us in portions or increments but in these last days has spoken to us by his Son (Heb 1:1-2) who is the radiance of God's glory...and "in him are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3) so that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father (John 5:23) The idea that the temple sacrifice will be reestablished the in millennium (aside from the strong warning in the Epistle of the Hebrews against this) is placing our eyes back on the shadows when they ought to be on Christ, who fulfilled every particular of the law, the prophets and the sacrifice. If eschatology takes our eyes off of Christ then there is, in my estimation, something dreadfully wrong with that eschatology.**

Does this mean we forget the Old testament? Not at all. Lord forbid. Rather, we read the Law and the prophets Christocentrically, not Israeleocentrically. Old Testament prophesy and types were mere shadows, signs pointing to the substance who is Christ. He brings out all truth out into the open like the noonday sun.

Consider that Hosea declared that God's anger against Israel would not last forever; that He would provide a renewed Israel who would serve the Lord faithfully (2:14–23). Matthew tells us that Jesus fulfills Hosea 11 (Matt. 2:13–15). That He is the true Israel, the faithful Israel who served the Lord completely and who succeeds where old covenant Israel failed. Where Israel fails to keep the Law, Jesus fulfilled it. Like ancient Israel, He came up out of Egypt, passed through the waters, and was tested in the wilderness and chose twelve disciples (2:13–15; 3:13–4:11; see Ex. 12:40–42; 14:1–31; 16:4). Unlike old covenant Israel, however, Jesus did not sin and passed the test (Hebrews 5:7-9).

Are there one people of God or two? Jesus is said to have laid down his life for His bride, the Church (Eph 5:25; Acts 20:28), which includes His people from all time. Jesus has only one bride. Any blessings that either ethnic Israel or the New Testament Church have, they have because of Christ. Israel has always been His bride, the Church, and the New Testament Church is said to be engrafted into the same body, the same covenant and the same commonwealth with Israel (Eph 2). All the promises of God in the Old Testament are yes and Amen in Him (2 Cor 1:20). All of the curses that God promised in the Old Testament for disobedience, Christ bore on the Cross. And all the obedience God commanded Israel, Jesus bore full burden Himself.

There will be great diversity of peoples on the new earth (without the division and sin) and our various callings we can only now imagine... but Israel's role as prophet, priest and king are fulfilled in Christ. Done. Christ is our King, our High Priest our Prophet. Shall we get our light and warmth from the planets that merely reflect the sun's light or from the sun itself? Shall we go to the prophets without the fullness of light that is in Christ to further illumine those prophets? The Old Testament greatly increases our faith because in light of what Christ has done, and there is an almost infinite number of things to read in those Scriptures which shine greater light on Christ and His ministry.

From my understanding of Dispensationalism, their view of the eternal state after the Millennium (where sacrifices have ceased) is what the world will actually look like when Jesus returns the first time.

-------

Note: The work of Christ is the fulfillment and underlying essence of all previous covenants. So the promise made to Abraham is yes in Christ. We strongly oppose the idea of Replacement theology or supercessionism. We stand with the reformed theology of Westminster standards ( note Larger Catechism. Q. 191).We do not speak of the Church as 'New Israel'. Believing Jews we commonly refer to as 'remnant Israel'. Gentiles were unnaturally grafted in, and are children of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3:7). The 'Church' (invisible), is a spiritual body comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. The Church (visible) cannot be said to be spiritual or new Israel. Paul's sorrow, and Paul's hope expressed in Romans 9-11 reveals that God is not done with ethnic Israel. So, Westminster Divines, and many countless reformed and puritan theologians since 1600s longingly prayed for and were intentionally involved in Jewish missions. Here is a list of Noted Theologians in History Who Believed in a Future Conversion of National/Ethnic Israel.

* The majority of Covenant theologian scholars hold to this view of a mass conversion of Jews but there are exceptions.
** According to Ezekiel 43:18–27 & Ezekiel 43:18–46:24 (which dispensationalists point to) these animal sacrifices are not anywhere described as memorials but are for making atonement.

-----

Table of Contents

Foreword by John Hendryx

What Dispensationalists Say About the People of God

What the Bible Says About the People of God: Categorized Scripture List

The People of God

The Fulfillment of Prophecy

True Teaching on the True Israel

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 12:53:08 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 13:51:01 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 13:53:13 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2023 14:00:03 GMT -5

Quick Reply