There are basically two Christian views on this subject. The Dispensational viewpoint is that God's main covenant is with the nation of Israel and that the current Christian (and mainly gentile) dispensation of grace is a “mere parenthesis” (using Walvoord's words) in God's plan for Israel. This plan includes full restoration of their land, temple, temple sacrifices, and an earthly reign of Christ from Jerusalem for 1,000 years as promised in the Old Testament prophecies.
The other main point of view says that the Church is the new Israel and has inherited all of the promises given to Israel in the Old Testament in terms of a future reign of Christ in the New Jerusalem, after the old Heaven and Earth pass away. The Old Testament prophecies to the nation of Israel were conditional upon the nation following God's commands, a condition which they failed to meet over and over again. This pattern of disobedience culminated in their rejection of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Although ethnic Jews are still free to be part of the new Israel, there is no New Testament teaching that their land, temple and kingly rule will be restored here on earth at any time in the future.
Here are a few Scriptures to consider which seem to be more consistent with this second view:
Two long-accepted,common-sense principles for Bible interpretation are (1) the New Testament interprets the Old Testament (Hebrews 1:1-2) and (2) plain prose passages are used to interpret obscure, poetic or symbolic ones. Dispensationalists usually reverse both of these principles by starting with certain Old Testament prophecies written in poetry and with the Book of Revelation (filled with veiled symbolic language), interpret them literally instead of the way they were meant to be understood (unless it happens to fit their ends to interpret them figuratively), and then use this understanding to force an unnatural interpretation on the plain teachings in the Gospels and Epistles.
Genesis 12:2-3 contains the promise to Abraham that a great nation would come from him, but the main purpose of that promise, explained further in Genesis 22:18, was not for the glory of the future Jewish nation but for the salvation of the pagan nations through Abraham's “seed.” God's purpose was fulfilled in Christ.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 This prophecy seems to clearly refer to the nation of Israel and yet the author of Hebrews (10:11-18) explains that it refers to the atoning act of Christ on the cross. See Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Beale and Carson, ed.) for numerous other examples of the way New Testament authors understood Old Testament writings to refer figuratively to New Testament events. To state, as do the Dispensationalists, that these prophecies must also be fulfilled literally by the nation of Israel at some later date is a great leap of logic with no New Testament justification.
Hebrews 8:7-13 states that Jesus instituted a New Covenant in his blood which replaces the Old Covenant entirely. That is why we have an Old Testament (i.e. Covenant) and New Testament in our Bibles. Dispensationalist teach that it is a misnomer to label them as such since the Old Covenant is still in effect for Jews. But they must also deal with such texts as Ephesians 2:16-19 and Romans 11:17-24. If believing Jews and gentiles belong to one body, how can there be separate future fates for both groups?
Jeremiah 18:9-10 is one of many statements by God that his promises to nations (including Israel) are conditional upon their proper behavior and can be revoked by him at any time. There are even several instances where God specifically gave a promise without expressing any conditions attached, but then took back that promise later when there was disobedience by the people (Exodus 3:8 with Numbers 14:30; Exodus 14:13 with Deuteronomy 28:68; I Samuel 2:30-31, Jeremiah 18:7-10; ). Obviously, there was an implied condition even in those cases.
Joshua stated in Joshua 21:43-45 that all of God's prophecies about Israel occupying the Promised Land had been completely fulfilled during his own time. To say, at this point, that God would be going back on his promise if he refused to let the Jews totally occupy the complete boundaries of the Promised Land at some time in the future is rather absurd.
I Thessalonians 2:16 Final wrath upon the nation of Israel came when they rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
Matthew 21:43 Jesus says that the kingdom will be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles.
Galatians 4:24-30 This allegory clearly states that Israel, as a nation, has lost her heritage.
Revelation 1:5-6 The promised Kingdom of God is not a Jewish kingdom but one of Christ and His followers. Of course there will be a future fulfillment of Christ's reign in the New Heaven and Earth, but Dispensationalist usually deny that Christ's kingdom has already been inaugurated and teach that it can't happen until the Millennium when Christ rules over a Jewish kingdom from a throne in Jerusalem. See Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20 and 17:21 for a New Testament understanding of the Kingdom. Jesus also specifically states that his kingdom is not an earthly one (John 18:36). It should also be pointed out that the Old Testament nowhere refers to a 1,000-year interim reign while the Book of Revelation nowhere associates the nation of Israel with the 1,000-year period.
I Peter 1:1,2:5-9 Language applied to the Church (exiles, dispersion, spiritual house, holy priesthood, chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, God's own people) is that formerly used only for the nation of Israel.
Amos 9:11 appears to be a prophecy that the earthly kingdom of David will be restored. However, this prophecy was fulfilled during New Testament times according to Acts 15:14-17.
Galatians3:27-29 states that all who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed and heir to the promise. For them there is no distinction between Jew and Greek.
Galatians 6:15-16 calls all believers “the Israel of God.”
Acts 13:32-4,38-9 explains that in Christ all of the promises to David were fulfilled and the people are freed from the penalty associated with the first covenant of law.
Romans 11:26 is the only passage in the New Testament that may hint of a future fate for Israel as a people different from that of the Church (and it says nothing at all about a future Jewish kingdom on earth). The context of Romans 9-11 must first be taken into account. In these chapters, Paul goes out of his way to explain that there still is a place for the Jewish people in God's plan, despite all indications that they have been utterly abandoned by God for their disobedience. What that place is, is somewhat of a “mystery” and few details are given. However, it is obvious that Paul (himself a Jew) did not consider the present time of the Church as a “mere parenthesis” in God's overall plan.
In explaining this passage we should next take in mind Paul's statements in Romans 5:18-19 (“one's man act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men”) and Romans 11:32 (“For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”) Since both of these passages refer to Jesus' death as opening up the possibility of all men having access to salvation, Romans 11:26 should probably be interpreted in a similar manner as making no statement concerning the universal salvation of the whole nation of Israel, and certainly no statement regarding her political future.
Romans 9:6 must also be taken into account here-- “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” Again, the clear teaching in the New Testament is that the true descendant of Abraham has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with faith, whether Jew or Gentile (Romans 10:12). Thus, “all Israel” probably refers to true Israel, that is, the Church.
Finally, a small point but one that has been blown up by Dispensationalists-- in constructing their chronology of end time events, they stress that the Jewish millennial kingdom on earth will only happen once the gospel has been preached to all the people groups of the world. They base this statement of the fact that verse 26 starts out with the word “then,” implying that the coming of all Israel to God will happen directly after all the worldwide evangelization mentioned in verse 25 has taken place. However, most commentators and translators point out that the initial word in verse 26 should be translated as “thus” or “in this manner” rather than “then. That gives an entirely different reading to this verse.
Some good references on the subject are: A Guide to Biblical Prophecy by Armending and Gasque, The Blessed Hope by G. Eldon Ladd, Eschatology and the New Testament by W. Hulitt Gloer, ed., and The Bible and the Future by Hoekema. They aren't nearly as exciting to read as popular fiction or non-fiction prophecy books, but I feel they do a much better job at arriving at what the Bible really says. But that's only my opinion, of course.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments