the Church, but it is \u201cthe place of privilege\u201d or the place of blessing. Israel was \u201cthe first definite group to be called to this place, but because of unbelief she was set aside or broken off.\u201d Now it is the Gentiles who are in this place of blessing. However, \u201cit is perfectly clear that Israel will again be grafted into the olive tree.\u201d
\nWalvoord discusses this passage when refuting the amillennial view:<\/p>\n
This chapter deals with the question whether God has cast off Israel. To this leading question Paul replies in positive terms, \u201cGod forbid.\u201d His argument may be summarized as a denial of this question. God has not cast away His people. There has always been a remnant in every age true to God. The unbelief of the nation Israel has never caused God to cast off His people as a whole (Rom. 11:3\u20134). There has always been a continuing program for Israel as witnessed in the present election of grace. Some Jews are being saved. While unbelieving Jews are blinded now, their present blindness will be lifted and replaced by sight and faith. When this glad day comes \u201call Israel shall be saved\u201d (Rom. 11:26), meaning a group or national deliverance in contrast to the individual salvation offered now. At that time God\u2019s covenants with Israel will be fulfilled, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, sure and irrevocable. The whole tenor of the chapter is against either the idea that Israel has lost all future hope of fulfillment of their promises through cancellation or that the church has received these promises and Israel is disinherited.<\/p>\n
Walvoord\u2019s conclusion is:<\/p>\n
On the basis of this brief study of terminology, the evidence has been examined and found to produce nothing indicating that the term Israel is ever used of Gentiles. Rather it is used of the godly remnant in all ages, Christian Jews, and the future national entity anticipated through the Scriptures. None of these usages support the amillennial contention that Israel has no national future.<\/p>\n
In the same work, Walvoord discusses the \u201cgeneral teaching of Romans 11.\u201d Walvoord\u2019s position is that the \u201cgeneral teaching of Romans 11 is that Israel is to be restored.\u201d His evidences are: when Paul asked the question, Hath God cast away his people? he answered \u201ccategorically, \u2018No\u2019\u2014\u2018God forbid\u2019 \u201d; in other words, \u201cGod has never cast away His people\u201d; even in times of apostasy there was always a \u201cGodly remnant\u201d and today that godly remnant are the \u201cJewish Christian believers.\u201d While it is true \u201cthat the nation Israel as a whole is unconverted and blinded,\u201d this was part of a divine purpose to bring \u201cmercy to the Gentiles\u201d; just as \u201cthe fall of Israel\u201d resulted \u201cin great Gentile blessing,\u201d by the same token, \u201cIsrael is destined for a glorious future\u201d; and so, \u201cIsrael\u2019s time of fullness is still ahead.\u201d Walvoord then discusses briefly the Olive Tree which he interprets as \u201cthe fountain of blessing,\u201d or the place of blessing. Jews and Gentiles are interpreted literally, but not as \u201cindividual Gentiles or individual Israelites, but rather to each entity as a group.\u201d The point of the illustration is that \u201cIsrael is pictured as being cut off the olive tree and the Gentiles are grafted in.\u201d Just as Gentiles \u201cwho are like branches from a wild olive free can be grafted into a good tree,\u201d by the same token \u201ccan Israel who is of the good tree naturally be grafted back in.\u201d The point of this passage is that someday they will be. Furthermore, the Gentiles can also be cut off if they fail to continue in faith. For now, it \u201cis the time of Gentile opportunity while the Israel promises are suspended,\u201d but the \u201cday is coming when the present time of Gentile blessing or fullness will come in and then Israel\u2019s hour of blessing will follow.\u201d
\nPentecost gives an excellent dispensational view of the Romans passage:<\/p>\n
The relation of the theocratic kingdom to this present age may be seen in the relation of the theocratic kingdom people, Israel, to the present program. This is traced in Romans 11. Paul makes certain statements there in tracing God\u2019s dealing. God has not cast Israel away (vv. 1\u20132), for God has always maintained a remnant for Himself (vv. 3\u20134) and there is a continuing remnant according to the election of grace (v. 5). National Israel has been blinded, judicially (v. 7), which blindness was anticipated in the Old Testament (vv. 8\u201310). Through this blinding of Israel God instituted a program with the Gentiles (vv. 11\u201312), in which, after the natural branches have been taken out of the place of blessing (vv. 13\u201316), wild branches, that is, Gentiles, have been grafted into the place of blessing (vv. 17\u201324). However, after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, that is, after the completion of the program with the Gentiles, God will bring Israel back into the place of blessing again (vv. 25\u201329) and will bring salvation to the nation (v. 26) because such was his irrevocable covenant (vv. 27\u201329). This salvation (v. 26) is the salvation that was promised Israel in the Old Testament, which was to be realized when the Messiah instituted the millennial reign. Therefore Paul is showing us that after the rejection of Israel, because of the rejection of the offered kingdom, God brought the Gentiles into the place of blessing, which program continues throughout the present age. When that program is ended, God will inaugurate the theocratic kingdom at the return of the Messiah and fulfill all the covenanted blessings. Thus, throughout the New Testament the kingdom is not preached as having been established, but is still anticipated. In Acts 1:6 the Lord did not rebuke the disciples because their expectation of a yet future kingdom was in error, but only stated that the time of that kingdom, although future, was not to be known by them.<\/p>\n
The above quote is a good example of a dispensational view of Romans 11 and is self-explanatory. What should be especially noted, in light of the various views of Covenant Theology on this same passage, is that \u201cGod has not cast Israel away,\u201d and that the Olive Tree is interpreted as \u201cthe place of blessing\u201d rather than the Church. This passage is interpreted as affirming both a national salvation and a national restoration of Israel; but for now, the theocratic kingdom \u201cis not preached as having been established, but is still anticipated.\u201d
\nThe three commentaries to be gleaned are by Alva J. McClain, former President of Grace Theological Seminary; Herman A. Hoyt, present President of the same; and, Charles Lee Feinberg, former Dean of Talbot Theological Seminary.
\nFeinberg gives a summary of chapter nine as a whole, which concerns Israel Past. The discussion of Israel\u2019s past naturally begins with the election of Israel. This election began with Abraham and carried through to Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob\u2019s descendants. The basis of this election was God\u2019s love for Israel and not on the basis of Israel\u2019s size or righteousness, for both were lacking. Israel\u2019s election in the Old Testament is reaffirmed by Romans nine. Feinberg asserts that to fully understand Romans nine, one must distinguish between individual election, which is \u201can election to salvation, eternal life in Jesus Christ,\u201d and national election, which is \u201can election to outward privilege.\u201d Only Israel has been the object of a national election, and the \u201cchoice of Israel was within the sphere of time and had to do with temporal things.\u201d The point of similarity between the two types of election is that both are unconditional; but in a national election it is possible for the wicked to \u201cpartake of the temporal blessings of the upright,\u201d and for the righteous to \u201cshare in the judgments of the wicked.\u201d It is a fact that the Remnant of Israel often suffers the fate of the nation as a whole. Romans nine speaks of both elections. There is a national election of Israel \u201cto privilege,\u201d but within national Israel there is \u201can individual election within a national election.\u201d Those Jews who are the objects of an individual election make up the Remnant of Israel. Such a situation is only possible with Israel, \u201cbecause she is the only nation in Scripture that has ever been nationally elected.\u201d Israel, as a nation, has been elected nationally to privilege, and individuals within that nation have been elected to salvation. \u201cIn spite of God\u2019s temporary rejection of the nation, it is eminently possible for individuals to be elected of God to eternal salvation at the same time.\u201d
\nThe first section of this part of the epistle is 9:1\u20135. McClain states that Paul begins his discussion with the admission that his kinsmen, the Jewish people, \u201care unsaved\u201d; however, this \u201cdoes not change the status of the nation before God.\u201d Eight things still belong to Israel. First is the adoption, and Israel is \u201cthe only nation that God ever called a son.\u201d For this reason, Paul used Israelites instead of \u201cJews,\u201d for Israel is their theocratic name. Second is the glory, which is the Shechinah Glory or \u201cGod\u2019s manifested presence.\u201d Third is the covenants, for \u201cGod has covenanted with this people as He has covenanted with no other people on the earth.\u201d Fourth is the giving of the law, and \u201cno other nation had a code of laws that God gave.\u201d Fifth is the service of God, meaning \u201cthe temple ritual,\u201d and \u201cthe sacrificial system.\u201d Sixth is the promises, for \u201cthe messianic promises were to Israel alone.\u201d Seventh is the fathers, the patriarchs, for \u201call those great men belonged to Israel, not to the Gentiles.\u201d Eighth is Christ, for the Messiah Himself, in His humanity, \u201ccame from Israel.\u201d The problem then is: Israel has rejected the gospel and yet they are still holding their position in the Old Testament. McClain points out that if Covenant Theology is true, and \u201cbecause of disobedience Israel had forfeited her favored position,\u201d and that \u201cconsequently now her promises and covenants are all to be transferred to the Church,\u201d this would have been the time to say it; but Paul never makes any such statement, because he \u201cwas too careful a student of the Old Testament Scriptures to cut the knot thus.\u201d On the contrary, Paul \u201cacknowledges at once that Israel, although rebellious and unsaved, is still the chosen nation.\u201d The solution is to be found in making a distinction between \u201cindividual salvation\u201d and \u201cnational favor.\u201d If \u201cIsrael\u2019s position as the divinely chosen nation had been conditioned upon the righteousness of her people as individuals, certainly this position would have been forfeited long before.\u201d Just as national election does not guarantee individual election (the salvation of every individual within the nation), by the same token, national election is not dependent upon individual election.
\nHoyt comments more specifically on verses 4\u20135. He defines the eight privileges of Israel the same way McClain does, and the conclusion is that in spite of Israel\u2019s unbelief, her status has not changed: \u201cthe sovereign choice of Israel as a nation remains an eternal fact.\u201d
\nFeinberg initially does not expound on the privileges of Israel, but chooses instead to deduct the meaning of the eight privileges: they are \u201cGod\u2019s tokens of love to Israel.\u201d This, in turn, explains Paul\u2019s sorrow of 9:1\u20132 and wish of 9:3 for \u201che must love where God loves.\u201d \u201cIf God has singled them out by His overflowing love, then he, too, shall love them with a passion unsurpassed by any other man.\u201d
\nLater, Feinberg elaborates on the national election and its privileges, and these privileges are listed in Romans 9:4\u20135. The first is the adoption, by which Israel became the national son of God. The second privilege is the glory, which is identified with the Shechinah Glory, the visible presence of God in the Holy of Holies. The third privilege is the covenants within which Feinberg includes all five Jewish covenants: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New. The Abrahamic Covenant is said to be \u201cwholly unconditional and one of promise,\u201d including a promise that \u201call the families of the earth are to be blessed in Abraham\u2019s seed, which is Christ.\u201d The Mosaic Covenant was \u201ca conditional covenant and hence was broken.\u201d The Palestinian Covenant \u201cmade possession and occupancy of the land, the right of ownership to which was included in the Abrahamic Covenant, contingent upon obedience to God while in the land.\u201d This means that Israel can \u201cstill have right of title to Palestine and yet not occupy it.\u201d Feinberg concludes that the Palestinian Covenant \u201cwas a conditional covenant and was broken by Israel.\u201d This is an unusual view for a Dispensationalist, and Feinberg virtually stands alone in making this covenant a conditional one. It seems contradictory to say that the Abrahamic Covenant gave unconditional ownership of the land to Israel and then claim that the Palestinian Covenant made \u201cthe right of ownership \u2026 contingent upon obedience to God.\u201d The general dispensational view is that the Palestinian Covenant is unconditional and guaranteed Israel\u2019s ownership of the land in spite of disobedience. While the enjoyment of the land is conditioned on obedience, as brought out by the Mosaic Covenant, ownership of the land is not, as brought out by the Abrahamic Covenant. The Davidic Covenant was an unconditional covenant and \u201cassured Israel that of the seed of David they would have a King to reign in Jerusalem during the millennial age.\u201d The New Covenant is an unconditional covenant, \u201cbut it has never been received by Israel as a nation.\u201d It \u201cassures redemption from sin through the Saviour Christ Jesus.\u201d Feinberg\u2019s conclusion is that the three \u201cunconditional covenants are still in force, because they are dependent upon God for their fulfillment,\u201d while the two \u201cconditional covenants have been broken by the disobedience of Israel.\u201d The fourth privilege is the giving of the Law, and the Law of Moses \u201cwas given to Israel only.\u201d The fifth privilege is the service of God, which is defined as \u201cthat characteristic feature of the religious life of Israel which differentiated them most strikingly from all their heathen neighbors.\u201d It included \u201ca divinely instituted priesthood,\u201d and \u201catonement for all sins committed\u201d through a \u201csystem of substitutionary sacrifices.\u201d The sixth privilege is the promises, which include the messianic promises, and \u201call God\u2019s gracious promises to Israel in the Old Testament can be included.\u201d There are five such promises: first, an \u201ceternal national entity\u201d so that \u201cIsrael need never fear for her national existence\u201d; second, an \u201ceternal land\u201d so \u201cthe right and title to it have irrevocably been given to them by God\u201d; third, an \u201ceternal King\u201d so David will \u201cnever lack for a son to reign upon his throne\u201d; fourth, an \u201ceternal kingdom\u201d so the Messiah\u2019s dominion will be \u201can everlasting one\u201d; and, fifth, \u201can eternal throne\u201d so David\u2019s \u201cthrone would exist forever.\u201d The seventh privilege was the Messiah Himself, and Israel is \u201cthe nation from which the Messiah came.\u201d Feinberg states that a \u201cnation so favored of God is assuredly one well beloved of Him.\u201d Feinberg concludes this section by showing that Israel was elected and privileged for \u201ca threefold purpose\u201d: first, Israel \u201cwas chosen to witness to the truth of the unity of God\u201d; second, \u201cIsrael was to preserve the Scriptures\u201d and did so \u201cin their purity\u201d; and, third, \u201cIsrael was chosen to be the channel of the Messiah.\u201d The unconditional Abrahamic Covenant promised a seed in whom \u201cwere all the nations of the earth to be blessed.\u201d This seed of Abraham was \u201cpassed from Abraham to Isaac and then to Jacob.\u201d This promise was fulfilled in the person of Jesus.
\nCommenting on 9:6, McClain interprets Paul\u2019s words as a denial that Israel\u2019s unbelief has caused \u201cthe Prophetic Word of God\u201d to be \u201cdriven out of its course being made of \u2018none effect.\u2019 \u201d The fact is, the \u201cWord of God has not failed,\u201d for the simple reason that \u201cnot all of the Israelites have rejected the Gospel message.\u201d Some Jews did believe, \u201cand these are the true Israelites upon whom God is even now fulfilling His promises.\u201d According to 9:6\u20138, through the \u201cbelieving remnant the continuity of the chosen nation is being preserved and assured.\u201d McClain, then, sees the two Israels as physical Israel and spiritual Israel, but both Israels are Jews. He does not make the latter Israel to be the Church. Physical Israel is still all Jews, and spiritual Israel is those Jews who believe. McClain clearly identifies spiritual or believing Israel with the Remnant of Israel.
\nOn 9:6, like McClain, Hoyt points out that there are two Israels, so not every person \u201cwho traces his physical lineage to Israel is counted as being a member of the nation of Israel as God looks at it.\u201d Unfortunately, Hoyt does not elaborate and clarify what constitutes each Israel in the way McClain does.
\nCommenting on 9:25\u201329, McClain sharply disagrees with Covenant Theologians. In previous chapters, it was shown that they use this section to prove that Paul taught that promises and prophecies made to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled to and in the Church. Ladd referred to this as the \u201creinterpretation\u201d of the Old by the New. McClain, while obviously familiar with this view, rejects it for that view cannot be justified. McClain shows that exegetically, the passage allows for a different perspective, which is that Paul was interpreting the prophecies of Hosea as speaking to Israel and not to the Gentiles. The view of Covenant Theology is arrived at by connecting the last phrase of verse 24, but also from the Gentiles, with the first phrase of verse 25, as he saith also in Hosea. However, McClain points out that another exegetical option is \u201cto regard the introductory phrase of verse 25 as referring back to the whole central argument which has gone before in this chapter, that is, the fact of an election with Israel purely on the basis of sovereign mercy where no mercy was deserved.\u201d McClain feels that it is a better option because then \u201cthe two quotations from Hosea not only cease to be misinterpretations, but also are seen to be peculiarly appropriate.\u201d This option is further supported by verse 27 which states what Isaiah said concerning Israel. The point of Hosea is that Israel was to receive mercy, and the point of Isaiah is that this mercy was to be \u201climited to a remnant.\u201d Other Dispensationalists do not accept this option, but do see Paul as speaking of Gentiles when quoting Hosea. However, they view Paul\u2019s quotation of Hosea merely as an application to believing Gentiles because of a similar situation, and not that the Gentiles are fulfilling Israel\u2019s promises. Application of Old Testament passages to a New Testament situation because of one point of similarity is a common motif in the New Testament.
\nHoyt is unclear on Paul\u2019s use of Hosea in 9:26\u201328:<\/p>\n
If this passage does not refer to Israel, then perhaps it reaches beyond Israel to the Gentiles. And undeserving though they may be, upon some of them God will set his sovereign love.\u2026<\/p>\n
The natural seed of Israel may be like the sand of the sea for number, but only a remnant will be saved. God will choose that remnant and they will respond in faith to His call.<\/p>\n
Contrary to McClain, Hoyt permits verse 26 to possibly speak of the Gentiles, though he affirms that the original Old Testament passage does speak of Israel. Unfortunately, he does not elaborate on Paul\u2019s use of Hosea.
\nCommenting on 9:30\u201333, McClain draws a conclusion. The conclusion is that while Israel the whole, national Israel, has failed, the Remnant of Israel has achieved. So have many Gentiles. The reason for this is that Israel tried to achieve by means of works, while the remnant and the believing Gentiles arrived by grace through faith. Israel\u2019s effort to achieve by works led the nation to reject the Messiahship of Jesus. As a result, Israel \u201cstumbled at the Stone of stumbling, the very Rock of Israel upon whom he might have leaned for salvation.\u201d
\nMoving on to Romans ten, McClain first discusses verses 1\u20134. The relationship between chapters nine and ten is that in chapter nine, Paul \u201cexplains why some Jews are saved,\u201d and in chapter ten he explains \u201cwhy the others are lost.\u201d His prayer for Israel shows that Paul \u201csaw nothing incongruous between prayer and the doctrine of sovereign election.\u201d On the contrary, \u201cbecause God is sovereign the Apostle can offer up supplication for his kinsmen.\u201d Paul\u2019s prayer for Israel falsifies the view of those \u201cpeople who say (and they are Christians, or at least, they call themselves Christians)\u2014\u2018God has cast off the Jew. That is the end of it.\u2019 \u201d However, as this section of Romans will show, this is not the \u201cend of it.\u201d The problem is that Israel, while zealous for the law, was nevertheless ignorant of God\u2019s righteousness. Had they submitted to the righteousness of God, they would have realized that Christ is the end of the law.
\nHoyt\u2019s interpretation of 10:4 is:<\/p>\n
Christ, a person, in His performance, is the end of the law. He brought the law to its end, or He put a stop to the law on the issues of righteousness by what he did at Calvary. There He took away the law which was \u201ccontrary to us\u201d by \u201cnailing it to his cross\u201d (Col. 2:14). There He \u201cabolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.\u201d (Eph. 2:15) \u2026<\/p>\n
Consistent with Dispensationalism, Hoyt teaches that the Law of Moses is no longer in effect, and he brings this out in several ways. First, Christ \u201cbrought the law to its end\u201d; second, Christ \u201cput a stop to the law on the issues of righteousness\u201d; third, Christ \u201ctook away the law\u201d; and, fourth, Christ \u201cabolished \u2026 the law of commandments.\u201d The Law of Moses is no longer a rule of life. This is true for all Dispensationalists. All schools of Covenant Theology insist that the Law of Moses is still in effect, but they are always forced to make major adjustments and even rewrites of the law, which Dispensationalism does not need to do.
\nOn 10:11\u201315, McClain states:<\/p>\n
Just as there was no difference between Jew and Gentile with respect to sin and condemnation, so also there is no difference between them with respect to the offer of righteousness and salvation, for \u201cWhosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved\u201d (vv. 12\u201313). This quotation taken from the prophet Joel (2:32) \u2026 brings together the very things taught by the Apostle in the ninth and tenth chapters of his Epistle. The prophet Joel declares first that \u201cWhosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered,\u201d and then adds that those who shall \u201cescape\u201d shall be \u201cthe remnant \u2026 whom Jehovah doth call\u201d (Joel 2:32). Thus the door is opened just as wide as the word \u201cwhosoever\u201d can open it.<\/p>\n
Both Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way; in that realm, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. Not only does the quotation from Joel show that salvation is offered to all on an individual basis, it also shows that the Remnant of Israel will come to saving faith.
\nHoyt\u2019s comments on 10:12 are:<\/p>\n
Even though the gospel came to the Jew first, this was only a priority in time, because in the plan of God it was through the Jews that He intended to reach the Gentiles. Being the God of Jews and Gentiles alike, God put no difference between them in making the riches of His grace available to both.<\/p>\n
Hoyt remarks that while \u201cthe gospel came to the Jew first, this was only a priority in time.\u201d He again fails to elaborate, and the statement, standing by itself, is not completely clear. By, \u201conly a priority in time,\u201d does he mean that this \u201cpriority\u201d is limited to the apostolic period, or is it limited to the present age? Some Dispensationalists believe that the gospel is \u201cto the Jew first\u201d throughout the Church Age, while others limit it to the apostolic age. Hoyt appears to take the latter view.
\nCommenting on 10:16\u201321, McClain states that Israel\u2019s unsaved state is not God\u2019s fault but Israel\u2019s for they did not believe the message of the Messiah. Yet this very national unbelief was predicted by Isaiah 53, the very same passage which spoke of the sufferings and death of the Messiah, and \u201cat which the unbelieving Jew had stumbled.\u201d
\nThe most crucial chapter is Romans 11. McClain\u2019s introduction to this chapter is:<\/p>\n
Only one question remains to be discussed, and it is one of supreme importance to the Jew and the Gentile. What is the present status of Israel as a nation in view of what has been said by the Apostle? Are we to understand that their unbelief has resulted in the canceling of ancient promises and privileges? Is this the end of national Israel? To use the opening words of chapter eleven, \u201cDid God cast off his people?\u201d The writer has already indicated in the first part of chapter nine what his general answer to this question will be, but now he devotes a whole chapter to a consideration of it.<\/p>\n
In Hoyt\u2019s introduction, he shows that the dispensational approach to Romans 11 is to recognize \u201cthe fact that the administration of God varies with different companies of people and in different periods of time.\u201d Unless this is understood, it \u201cis impossible to understand God\u2019s design for the nation of Israel.\u201d While \u201cthrough all the varying administrations there runs one eternal purpose,\u201d nevertheless, \u201cIsrael, the nations, and the church do not lose their identity or distinctiveness, but each performs its function in contributing to that one eternal purpose.\u201d Hoyt does not state what that \u201cone eternal purpose\u201d actually is, but if he is in line with most Dispensationalists, that \u201cone eternal purpose\u201d is doxological, that is, the glory of God. The issue in Romans 11 is, \u201cWhat is the present status of Israel as a nation?\u201d It is important to note that in this chapter, \u201cIsrael is under consideration as a nation rather than as individuals.\u201d Paul points out in this chapter that \u201cthere is no canceling of the ancient promises and privileges granted to Israel.\u201d It is on \u201cthis firm foundation\u201d that Paul discusses \u201cthe present status of Israel, not as a \u2018spiritual Israel\u2019 but as a national entity that traces its lineage back to Abraham.\u201d To use any other approach to the subject of this chapter causes \u201cthe issue at hand\u201d to \u201cvanish in a mist of subjectivism.\u201d The issue at hand is \u201cthe literal nation of Israel,\u201d and in this nation \u201cthe eternal purpose of God is now brought into bold relief.\u201d
\nFeinberg\u2019s introduction to this chapter is:<\/p>\n
Paul proves conclusively that there is a prospect for Israel by three irrefutable arguments: (1) Paul himself in the past, (2) the remnant in the present, and (3) all Israel in the future.<\/p>\n
According to McClain, 11:1\u201310 deals with \u201cHath God Cast Off His People?\u201d or \u201cA Present Election Within Israel.\u201d The \u201cHis people\u201d in the question, \u201cDid God cast off his people?\u201d is not a reference to the \u201celect remnant of believing Jews,\u201d for it is obvious to all that God would not cast them off. Here, Paul is \u201cspeaking of Israel as a nation.\u201d The question now \u201cconcerns the status of a nation before God.\u201d The question is, \u201cHas He cast off Israel?\u201d The answer to Paul was obvious: God forbid! The evidence for this conclusion is the fact that \u201cthere is a present election,\u201d and this means that \u201cthe present rejection of the nation is not total, but only partial; and furthermore that even this partial rejection is not final, but only temporary.\u201d Paul proceeds to cite three evidences that \u201cGod did not cast off his people.\u201d First, Paul is a Jewish believer, and if God had cast off Israel, then Paul would not be a saved man. Second, the foreknowledge of God forbids it, for God would not cast off his people \u201cwhom he foreknew.\u201d McClain feels this may be a reference \u201cto the many predictions of the Old Testament prophets regarding the continuity of Israel as the people of Jehovah.\u201d Third, it has always been true that in Jewish history the majority of the nation was in unbelief, and only the remnant believed. One example is the period of Elijah when only seven thousand Jews were believers and members of the remnant; but in Paul\u2019s day, there were considerably more than that. What this means is that the \u201cpresent situation is therefore not worse than it has been before, and the nation was certainly not cast off back there.\u201d There is always a remnant \u201caccording to the election of grace.\u201d McClain points out that the way one resolves all the questions of Romans 11 \u201cwill settle one of two methods of interpretation.\u201d One \u201cschool of thought\u201d claims that \u201cin the church God has fulfilled everything in the Old Testament and there is no future for the Jew as a nation.\u201d This, of course, is the view of the majority who espouse Covenant Theology. The second view is that \u201cGod has set Israel aside for an age, and at some future time (in the next age) God will fulfill to the letter every promise He has made to Israel as a nation.\u201d Dispensationalism opts for the second view.
\nAccording to Hoyt, in answer to the question, Did God cast off his people? Paul says, God forbid. This is first made evident by the way the question is phrased in the Greek, \u201cfor the form of the question expects a negative answer.\u201d It is true that Israel as a nation is in disobedience, but this was also true in the days of Elijah. In other words, just because the majority of the nation is in unbelief, this itself does not prove that God has cast away His people. Second, the negative answer \u201cis vigorously stated\u201d with the declaration of God forbid, or \u201cLet it not be.\u201d Whether one can fully understand all of Paul\u2019s proofs, \u201cthe emphatic denial cannot be missed by anyone.\u201d The first of these proofs that Paul provides is the \u201cpersonal reference to himself.\u201d Since Paul is of the Seed of Abraham according to the flesh and belongs to the Tribe of Benjamin and is a believer, he obviously, \u201chas not been cast away.\u201d Just as the grace of God has reached Paul, someday \u201cthe grace of God will reach the nation as a nation.\u201d The obvious conclusion is \u201cthat God has not cast away His people.\u201d
\nCommenting on 11:2\u20136, Hoyt states that Paul, as if the emphatic denial of verse one was insufficient, in verse two \u201cadds a declarative statement: \u2018God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.\u2026\u2019 \u201d Israel is still \u201cHis people.\u201d Regardless \u201cof what He knew about them, what would develop in the course of the centuries, He chose them.\u201d As further evidence beyond himself, Paul resorts to the Old Testament and the story of Elijah. Even in Elijah\u2019s day the majority of the nation was in unbelief; nevertheless, \u201cGod reserved to Himself a remnant.\u201d By the same token, \u201c\u2026 at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. The purpose of God is fulfilled in the creation of a peculiar people according to the flesh who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d The remnant, then, is always a Jewish remnant and the existence of this remnant is evidence that God has not cast away His people.
\nWhen he comes to 11:7\u201311, Hoyt interprets this passage as distinguishing between Israel the whole and Israel the remnant. The righteousness that Israel the whole sought \u201cby means of law,\u201d they did not obtain; but the Remnant of Israel obtained \u201cby faith.\u201d The result was that \u201call the rest of Israel were hardened.\u201d Though Israel the whole stumbled, this stumbling \u201cwas not a stumbling merely to fall and nothing more\u201d; and \u201cPaul vigorously denies\u201d that this \u201cstumbling\u201d was only for the purpose of falling. On the contrary, Israel\u2019s stumbling \u201cleads to something wonderful,\u201d for it \u201cbrought salvation to the Gentiles.\u201d This, in turn, fulfills Genesis 12:3 in which \u201cGentiles become the spiritual seed of Abraham.\u201d Even this is not the end, for the purpose of Gentile salvation was to provoke the Jews to jealousy.
\nFeinberg takes a slightly different approach. Commenting on 11:1, Feinberg states that the point of this verse is that if it is true that God has cast off Israel, then not even Paul would be saved, because he is part of Israel. Not only is Paul\u2019s own salvation evidence that God has not cast off His people, it is also evidence that like Paul in the past, the nation of Israel will be saved in the future. Feinberg goes on to say that in this \u201cpresent Age of Grace\u201d the nation of Israel \u201chas been rejected from her position of privilege.\u201d Feinberg draws this conclusion from Romans 3:9 where Paul concludes that the Jews, like the Gentiles, are all under sin. This is true, but Paul, when listing Israel\u2019s privileges, puts them in the present tense. It is better to view these privileges as still belonging to Israel, but the enjoyment of these privileges is based upon obedience.
\nCommenting on 11:2\u201324, Feinberg states that the very existence of a believing Jewish remnant is further evidence that God has not cast away His people. Though it is a remnant, it has always been a remnant, even in the Old Testament. These verses do not teach that \u201cIsrael is cast off for all time,\u201d but only that \u201cthere is a remnant in the midst of a seeming universal apostasy,\u201d but \u201cthe apostasy of Israel is never a complete one.\u201d The fall of Israel \u201cis not final\u201d and God wants Gentile Christians to provoke the Jews to jealousy. If \u201cGod wants them to be provoked to jealousy, surely He has not cast them off forever.\u201d
\nMcClain, commenting on 11:11\u201324, states that while God has not cast off His people, nevertheless, \u201cIsrael has stumbled terribly, and she is fully responsible for her sin.\u201d Yet God\u2019s \u201cgracious purpose\u201d can be seen in \u201cthe very disobedience of His people,\u201d for by \u201cthe fall of Israel salvation has come to the Gentile world.\u201d This, in turn, leads to a happy logical deduction. If Israel\u2019s \u201cfall has been the riches of the world,\u201d then \u201chow much more will this be true when their \u2018fullness\u2019 is come in.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cif the casting away of them has resulted in the reconciliation of the world,\u201d then \u201cwhat shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead!\u201d It is for this reason that Paul the apostle of Gentiles spent so much time in Jewish evangelism, and always went to the Jew first. For this reason, he declared, I glorify my ministry. Paul magnified his office by preaching the gospel to Jews, for the \u201cmore Jews that are saved, the more Gentiles there will be saved, and the greater will be the ministry to the Gentiles.\u201d This means that Gentiles \u201cshould not be lifted up with pride\u201d and \u201cshould not be anti-Semitic.\u201d Paul was teaching \u201cwhat all the Old Testament prophets plainly declare, namely, a future restoration of national Israel back into the place of favor with God.\u201d Although \u201cPaul knew the future blessing was to come, he was trying to save Jews, which in turn would bring more Gentiles.\u201d
\nAt this point, McClain turns to the Olive Tree and gives a dispensational view of it. He interprets the tree to represent \u201cthe place of favor or privilege before God.\u201d This is the same as Pentecost\u2019s \u201cplace of blessing.\u201d Because grafting a branch into a tree, either wild or natural, does not change the nature of the branch, this means that \u201cin Paul\u2019s olive tree Jews remain Jews, and Gentiles remain Gentiles.\u201d This is true, although \u201cin Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile; all such distinctions cease.\u201d However, while both these seemingly contradictory statements are true, McClain nowhere tries to resolve the paradox, again reflecting Dispensationalism\u2019s perennial weakness concerning Israel Present. The root of the tree is identified with Abraham and probably the Abrahamic Covenant, \u201cfor through him and his seed the favor of God has flowed Into the world.\u201d The natural branches are the Jews, for \u201csalvation is of the Jews.\u201d The wild olive branches are the Gentiles, for \u201cduring the present age the Gentile is enjoying a place of favor which properly belongs to the Jew.\u201d The Gentiles should not, however, become \u201chigh-minded,\u201d for if \u201cGod spared not the natural branches when they failed to live up to the responsibility of their favored position, neither will He spare the wild branches if they fail to take advantage of the favor shown them.\u201d They must never forget that \u201cGod is fully able to graft the Jew back into the tree of favor,\u201d for \u201cthis place belongs properly to the Jew.\u201d After all, this tree is \u201ctheir own\u201d; in fact, this is what God intends to do.
\nCommenting on 11:12, Hoyt states that the previous passage points out that Israel\u2019s fall led to Gentle salvation. This leads to a logical inference: if the fall of Israel \u201cresulted in God turning to the larger world of mankind with the riches of His grace,\u201d then logically \u201cthe fulness of Israel will unfold in benefits to the Gentiles far beyond anything ever dreamed.\u201d When this fulness comes, \u201cthen all that God intended for Israel will be realized,\u201d and \u201cthere will be a perfect fulfillment of the divine purpose in Israel.\u201d During this present age \u201cGod is working among Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name,\u201d but this will eventually end. Then, \u201cthe Lord will call the church out of this world,\u201d and at that point \u201cHe will then turn again to His people Israel and will bring them to Himself.\u201d This will follow in God working through Israel to \u201creach all the Gentile nations.\u201d
\nCommenting on 11:13\u201316, Hoyt states that while Israel is destined for a great future of fruitfulness, Paul wanted to see the salvation of many Jews in the present. He called upon the Gentiles to practice Jewish evangelism. He wished to arouse among the Gentiles \u201csuch activity as will produce immediate response among his own people.\u201d In making this appeal to the Gentiles, \u201cthe apostle to the Gentiles\u201d makes \u201cthe most out of his office.\u201d The motivation for Jewish evangelism is based on the \u201cfact that the temporary casting away of Israel worked in such a way that it brought about the reconciling of the world.\u201d If \u201ctemporary rejection led to reconciliation, surely the permanent reception of Israel can only lead to resurrection.\u201d Hoyt understands the term \u201cresurrection\u201d figuratively rather than literally, the point being that the \u201csalvation of the Jews will produce such an amazing response from among Gentiles that there will be a world revival.\u201d Jews will evangelize the Gentiles both in the Tribulation and in the Millennium, resulting in millions being \u201cswept into the kingdom of God.\u201d The evidence is that since the firstfruit is holy, then the lump is also holy. Hoyt identifies the firstfruit as the three patriarchs, and the lump as \u201cthe abundance of the harvest\u201d which \u201cis yet future.\u201d The root is identified with Abraham, and so, because \u201che was holy, \u2026 what comes from him, the branches, must also be holy.\u201d Contained in the firstfruit and root is \u201cthe promise of the branches and the harvest.\u201d
\nWhen Hoyt comes to the section on the Olive Tree in 11:17\u201321, he merely quotes McClain, showing he takes the same view: the Olive Tree represents the place of blessing. This becomes evident in his comments on 11:22\u201324:<\/p>\n
Take a look at the goodness and severity of God. It was unbelief that brought the infliction of severity on Israel. It was goodness that placed the Gentiles in the place of favor. And that goodness will continue to be manifest so long as Gentiles continue its that goodness. Continuation requires the exercise of faith. When the nation of Israel forsakes its unbelief for faith, it will again be inducted into the place of favor. Since the Gentiles by grace were inducted into the place of favor, they may be sure that God will more than restore Israel in that place to fulfill His original purpose for Israel.<\/p>\n
C. Israel Future<\/p>\n
1. The Unconditional Covenants<\/p>\n
A great part of Dispensational Eschatology is based on the nature of the unconditional covenants God made with Israel. Chafer, discussing prophecy concerning Israel\u2019s covenants, points out that the reason there is such sharp disagreement among evangelicals over Eschatology is not the issue of exegesis of specific texts, but because of a poor Israelology. Here, Chafer places the finger on the real issue that divides Dispensationalism from all three schools of Covenant Theology. It is Israelology. It is the failure to take seriously what the Bible states concerning Israel. It is the failure to give \u201cto the nation Israel the place and importance which God in His sovereignty has assigned to that nation.\u201d This failure \u201cis the cause of most of the confusion of mind relative to prophetic themes.\u201d This \u201csovereign election of the one nation, Israel,\u201d is something that \u201cthe Gentile nations seem unable to realize\u201d although \u201cthe election of Israel is continually emphasized throughout the Scriptures.\u201d These Scriptures, if taken at face value, teach that God \u201chas loved Israel with an everlasting love\u201d and to Israel \u201cHis gifts and calling are without repentance.\u201d According to God\u2019s \u201ceternal purpose, they are to be regathered, restored, and preserved forever.\u201d
\nElsewhere, while discussing Christology, Chafer shows that a major basis in believing in a literal Millennial Kingdom is the unfulfilled promises of the Jewish covenants. Two things are emphasized in the Abrahamic Covenant. The first is \u201can everlasting nation.\u201d Chafer rejects the position of Covenant Theology which claims \u201cthat this nation is but a feature of one covenant,\u201d which makes Israel the Church of the Old Testament \u201cbound into the same purpose with the Church of the New Testament\u201d and so Israel as a nation is now \u201cmerged into the Church\u201d and, for that reason, has \u201cno distinctive future.\u201d He rejects the position that \u201cbecause of their sin, God has cut off His earthly people forever.\u201d Chafer declares that these are merely \u201crationalistic notions\u201d which have no biblical support. On the contrary, the Abrahamic Covenant promises \u201can everlasting earthly seed\u201d just as it promised an everlasting \u201cspiritual seed.\u201d Since the Bible declares the Abrahamic Covenant to be \u201can everlasting covenant,\u201d then there must be \u201can everlasting people to whom it applies.\u201d This is reaffirmed in the New Testament in Romans 11 which clearly teaches that Israel\u2019s setting aside is \u201conly until the present divine purpose \u2026 is accomplished\u201d for, after that, \u201call Israel shall be saved.\u201d The second thing emphasized by the Abrahamic Covenant is \u201can everlasting possession of the land.\u201d The sand with specific borders promised by the Abrahamic Covenant is reaffirmed by the Palestinian Covenant. The latter covenant promised the land \u201cfor an everlasting possession.\u201d For that reason, Israel is destined to be restored to her land. On the other hand, \u201cno land is promised to the Church\u201d and, therefore, these promises cannot be applied to the Church without \u201cincongruity.\u201d
\nRyrie picks up on the same motif. To prove that \u201cthe Church does not fulfill the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant\u201d is one thing. To prove that Israel will fulfill the promises in the future is another. Ryrie admits that \u201cit is necessary to show that the Scriptures teach positively that Israel is the nation which will fulfill these promises.\u201d This Ryrie proceeds to do in two ways. The first is based on \u201cpassages which clearly teach that Israel will be restored.\u201d He begins with a logical deduction: \u201cIf the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are unconditional, \u2026 and if the Church does not fulfill these promises, then the only logical conclusion is that Israel will be restored in order to fulfill them.\u201d However, many Covenant Theologians \u201cinsist that the nation has been completely rejected by God.\u201d Ryrie rejects this notion by examining two passages. The first is Matthew 21:43, a favored one among those teaching the rejection of Israel view. However, does this verse teach a \u201ccomplete disinheritance of Israel from all her promises?\u201d Most Covenant Theologians answer yes, but Dispensationalists answer no. Ryrie states that when Jesus said that \u201cthe Kingdom of God shall be taken from you,\u201d He did not mean from the nation forever. Rather, \u201cthe you refers to the generation to which Jesus was speaking,\u201d the Jewish generation of Jesus\u2019 day. When Jesus said, \u201cand given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,\u201d He did not mean the Church, for that is not a nation; rather it will be a future generation of Israel that \u201cshall turn to the Lord and be saved before entering the millennial kingdom.\u201d The second passage is Romans 11:26\u201327, which prophesies that all Israel shall be saved. Since in the context \u201cPaul has been speaking of the setting aside of Israel as a nation,\u201d then obviously this must be speaking of \u201cthe restoration of Israel as a nation.\u201d Today, it is the remnant that is being saved; in the future, in contrast to only the remnant, it will be all Israel who \u201cwill be saved at the Second Coming.\u201d Ryrie concludes that, according to these two passages, \u201cit is clear that Israel has not been cast off but will be restored to the place of blessing in the future.\u201d For that reason, Israel \u201cwill be in a position to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.\u201d The second is based on \u201cpassages which show that Israel will possess the land again.\u201d Ryrie again begins with a logical deduction. Since it is evident \u201cthat Israel will be able to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant since she will be restored,\u201d then she will do so. This restoration includes the possession of the Promised Land, the boundaries of which \u201cwere given in very definite terms.\u201d Even the Palestinian Covenant, which \u201claid down conditions for enjoyment of the land, in no way forfeits the title of the land given to Abraham.\u201d In light of the fact that \u201cthe Church does not fulfill these specifically Israelitish promises,\u201d there are only two options: either there is no future fulfillment at all, or there will be. If there will be a future fulfillment, then its \u201cfulfillment in the future involves the continuance of the nation Israel.\u201d
\nWalvoord also emphasizes the importance of the Abrahamic Covenant in conjunction with Dispensational Eschatology. Discussing the \u201cPromise to Abraham,\u201d Walvoord states that Abraham and his descendants were clearly promised a land. In light of the specifics given in Genesis, it was clearly understood to be a literal piece of real estate on earth then known as the Land of Canaan. The problem is that these specific promises have not yet been fulfilled in their entirety. The issue is: will these promises be fulfilled in the future? Both Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Amillennialists answer negatively. Even Covenant Premillennialists, who believe in a national restoration, are reluctant to base it on Old Testament promises. However, Dispensationalists have no difficulty in giving a positive answer on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant. They believe this is an unconditional covenant and \u201ctherefore hold that Israel has a bona fide ground for future possession of the land, particularly in the millennial kingdom period.\u201d Ultimately, the issue boils down to \u201cthe question of whether Israel will ever possess all the promised land.\u201d If the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, and if Israel is to continue as a nation forever, two points Walvoord discussed earlier, then \u201cit follows that Israel as such will possess the land.\u201d Walvoord states that if this last point can be substantiated independently, it will give further evidence to the two previous points \u201cthat the covenant is unconditional and that Israel will continue as a nation.\u201d
\nLater, discussing the \u201cCharacter of the Promise of the Land,\u201d Walvoord\u2019s point is that such details cannot be allegorized and spiritualized away and must be taken literally. The character of the promise, then, is that it is a real earthly land with specific borders and was given to Israel as a possession \u201cforever.\u201d
\nSome Covenant Amillennialists claim that these promises will never be fulfilled, either because they were intended to be understood figuratively or were cancelled because of Israel\u2019s disobedience. Others of the same school claim that all such prophecies have already been fulfilled in the days of Joshua (21:43\u201345) and\/or Solomon (1 Kings 4:21, 24). To this contention Walvoord responds:<\/p>\n
The amillennarian position is often distinguished for its blindness to facts which would upset its own argument. The present instance is a good illustration. If its promises regarding the land were fulfilled in Joshua\u2019s time or in Solomon\u2019s, why do the Scriptures which were written later still appeal to the hope of future possession of the land? Practically every one of the Major and Minor Prophets mention in some form the hope of future possession of the land. All of them were written after Solomon\u2019s day. This is an obvious rebuttal to the amillennial position and points to the amillennial failure to face the real issues of the millennial debate with a view to all the evidence.<\/p>\n
The original promises of the land involved (1) possession of the land, (2) permanent possession, (3) and occupying the land. Even in Solomon\u2019s day at the height of his kingdom the land was not all possessed. At best it was placed under tribute as the very passage cited by the amillennarians indicates (1 Kings 4:21). Certainly all must agree that possession was not permanent. Further at no time was all the land actually occupied by Israel.<\/p>\n
Answering the question, \u201cWill Israel be Restored as a Nation?\u201d Walvoord begins by dealing with the \u201cTestimony of the Old Testament Prophets\u201d and states:<\/p>\n
Most of the prophets of the Old Testament with enraptured gaze contemplated the glory of a millennial kingdom in which Israel would be restored and be head of all nations.<\/p>\n
The Abrahamic covenant required that Israel continue as a nation forever in order to fulfill the \u201ceverlasting covenant\u201d (Gen. 17:7) and in order to have the land as \u201can everlasting possession\u201d (Gen. 17:8). All the facts discussed previously, to the point that Israel continues as a nation forever, possesses the land forever, is not disinherited, is not supplanted by the church, and that Israel\u2019s basic covenants are dependent upon God\u2019s faithfulness alone for fulfillment, combine to require Israel\u2019s restoration after these centuries of dispersion and chastening. The conclusion that Israel has a future restoration is based upon these facts along with the voluminous testimony of the prophets concerning Israel\u2019s coming golden age.<\/p>\n
Walvoord then goes on to discuss the \u201cDenial of This Testimony,\u201d summarizing how both Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Amillennialists deny that there will be such a restoration by denying that such prophecies are to be understood literally. Walvoord responds:<\/p>\n
Any attempt to interpret the promises given to Israel literally, however, points to a future restoration coincident to the establishment of the millennial kingdom upon the earth at the second advent of Jesus Christ. This future restoration of Israel is in harmony with and supported by the great body of revelation concerning Israel much of which has already been discussed.<\/p>\n
Walvoord then summarizes the salient points which require the belief in a restoration of Israel. The first point is \u201cIsrael\u2019s Continuance as a Nation.\u201d The fact that the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant containing eternal promises, and the fact that it is Israel who was covenanted these promises, assure \u201cIsrael\u2019s continuance as a nation.\u201d The fact that Israel \u201chas continued as a recognizable entity in spite of centuries of dispersion and corruption of the physical seed\u201d is further proof of this. One final fact is the re-establishment of Israel as \u201ca political state bearing its name and embodying at least a portion of their ancient geographical possessions.\u201d This again illustrates the pro-Zionism so often found among Dispensationalists.
\nThe second salient point is \u201cIsrael\u2019s Regathering After Dispersion.\u201d Walvoord\u2019s favorable view of Zionism and the modern State of Israel is again apparent in this quote. Building on his earlier teaching that there were to be three dispersions and three returns, the author clearly feels that the present Jewish State is the beginning of that third return. The present State of Israel is definitely part of the divine prophetic program which will ultimately lead to the second coming for, just as \u201cthe second gathering was the prelude for the first advent of Christ, so the third regathering is the prelude for the second advent.\u201d While Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Amillennialists deny that modern Israel has any prophetic significance, and while Covenant Premillennialists are ambivalent to the issue and not quite sure what to make of it, Dispensationalists, like Walvoord, have no difficulty in affirming that the \u201cfoundation of the State of Israel in recent years has been a part of the predicted regathering of scattered Israel back to their ancient land.\u201d The present regathering is \u201ctangible evidence which cannot be ignored reasonably\u201d of that future final restoration. It is evidence of the validity of \u201cthe literal interpretation of prophecy\u201d for it was Dispensationalists who held to such a view of prophecy which \u201canticipated just such a movement.\u201d This being true, it provides further validity of a literal Millennial Kingdom.
\nThe third salient point is \u201cIsrael\u2019s Possession of the Promised Land.\u201d The key evidence here is that the Abrahamic Covenant promised Israel the \u201ceverlasting possession of the land,\u201d with \u201cspecific boundaries given to Abraham.\u201d However, although this was an unconditional promise, it has not yet been fulfilled. Since \u201cIsrael\u2019s failures do not abrogate the promises,\u201d it requires a future fulfillment when Israel will be fully restored.
\nThe fourth salient point is the \u201cRestoration of Israel in the New Testament.\u201d The evidences Walvoord produces are: Gabriel\u2019s message to Mary that \u201cher son would sit upon the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob forever\u201d; when the mother of James and John petitioned Jesus that her sons be allowed to sit \u201con either side of Christ in the kingdom,\u201d Jesus did not say that her concept of an \u201cearthly kingdom was in error,\u201d but that \u201cthis honor was only for those whom the Father chose\u201d; Christ\u2019s promise to the apostles that \u201cthey would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes in the day of restoration\u201d; Christ\u2019s promise to them that in the kingdom they \u201cwould eat at His table\u201d; and, when the apostles asked Him if He would \u201cat this time restore again the kingdom of Israel,\u201d Jesus did not rebuke them \u201cfor doctrinal error,\u201d but told them that \u201cthe \u2018times or seasons\u2019 were in the hands of the Father.\u201d Walvoord further points out that \u201cthe teaching of Christ never refutes the common expectation of the Jews and the apostles for literal fulfillment of the promises of an earthly kingdom for Israel, but rather confirms it.\u201d
\nIn a different work, Walvoord deals with \u201cIsrael\u2019s Future as a Nation,\u201d and summarizes the dispensational view. The dispensational position on Israel is that Israel continues as a race and as a nation with her golden age as a nation to be experienced in the future Millennial Kingdom. This is a certainty because of \u201cthe nature of her promises,\u201d in that the Abrahamic Covenant \u201cis declared to be everlasting and the land is promised to Israel as an everlasting possession.\u201d This is reconfirmed by the New Covenant of Jeremiah and the New Testament and it does not \u201calter this clear revelation in the Old Testament.\u201d In the New Testament a threefold distinction is taught: between Israel and the Gentiles; between Israel and the Church; and, between Jewish believers and Gentiles believers. God\u2019s faithfulness is such that His promises can be trusted to be fulfilled to whom they were made, \u201cwhether to Israel or to the church.\u201d
\nDiscussing \u201cPromises of the Land to Israel,\u201d Walvoord states that in Dispensationalism, the \u201ctheological implications of the promise of the land to Israel\u201d are \u201ccentral in God\u2019s eschatological purpose for His ancient people.\u201d As for the Abrahamic Covenant, the \u201cpromise of the land was integral in the original covenant with Abraham\u201d and if not understood literally, then the covenant becomes totally meaningless. Furthermore, both the major and minor prophets provide a \u201cconstant reiteration of the promise in which literal possession of the land is implied or stated.\u201d Walvoord feels that so many prophecies provide \u201can overwhelming proof that the entire Old Testament lends its confirmation to a promise of future possession of the land to Israel.\u201d These promises \u201cwere never transferred to the Gentiles,\u201d though thus far they are not totally fulfilled to Israel. However, someday they must be, for just as the dispersions of Israel are both prophesied and fulfilled, all the regathering most also be fulfilled, and one more is predicted. That \u201cfinal regathering will include every Israelite to the last man, a promise which today has never been fulfilled.\u201d The land promises could not have been fulfilled either in the days of Joshua or Solomon, because neither ever \u201cfulfilled the promise in any proper sense,\u201d and prophets speaking after their time \u201cregarded the promise as subject to future fulfillment.\u201d Just as \u201cthe prophecy concerning Israel has always had its fulfillment in the past, so it will also in the future.\u201d Just as the believer today is sure of the promise of heaven, \u201cIsrael\u2019s promise of the land is just as sure.\u201d
\nIn one of his other works, Walvoord summarizes what specific conclusions a theologian must reach if he takes prophecy literally. First is \u201cthat there is a future time of trouble which will be a major feature of the end time,\u201d which is commonly called the Great Tribulation. Second, that the Tribulation \u201cis a period of seven years culminating Israel\u2019s history.\u201d Third, that there remains a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church in Eschatology as there is in all other areas of biblical studies. This distinction sees the Church as \u201ca separate body of believers, distinct in the divine purpose of God\u2019s plan from the nation Israel and more particularly to be contrasted to His plan for the saved or elect of Israel.\u201d
\nPentecost gives the eschatological implication of each of the unconditional covenants. Concerning the Abrahamic Covenant, he states:<\/p>\n
When it has been determined that the Abrahamic covenant is an unconditional covenant made with Israel, and therefore cannot be either abrogated or fulfilled by people other than the nation Israel, it is seen that Israel has promises regarding a land and a seed, which determine the future program of God. These words land and seed, together with the word blessing, summarize the essential features of the eschatological portion of the covenant.<\/p>\n
On the Palestinian Covenant Pentecost states:<\/p>\n
From the original statement of the provisions of this covenant, it is easy to see that, on the basis of a literal fulfillment, Israel must be converted as a nation, must be regathered from her world-wide dispersion, must be installed in her land, which she is made to possess, must witness the judgment of her enemies, and must receive the material blessings vouchsafed to her. This covenant, then, is seen to have a wide influence on our eschatological expectation. Since these things have never been fulfilled, and an eternal and unconditional covenant demands a fulfillment, we must provide for just such a program in our outline of future events. Such is the expectation of the prophets who write to Israel.<\/p>\n
In the realm of Eschatology as it affects Israelology, the Palestinian Covenant, if interpreted literally, demands Israel\u2019s national salvation, a national regathering, a national restoration back into the land, the judgment of Israel\u2019s enemies, and the enjoyment of the covenant material blessings in the Messianic Kingdom. Since these unconditional promises of the Palestinian Covenant were not fulfilled in the past, then they must be fulfilled in the future.
\nPentecost then turns to the Davidic Covenant:<\/p>\n
Because of an anticipated future literal fulfillment, certain facts present themselves concerning Israel\u2019s future. (1) First of all, Israel must be preserved as a nation.\u2026 (2) Israel must have a national existence, and be brought back into the land of her inheritance.\u2026 the land must be given to this nation as the site of their national homeland. (3) David\u2019s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, must return to the earth, bodily and literally, in order to reign over David\u2019s covenanted kingdom.\u2026 (4) A literal earthly kingdom must be constituted over which the returned Messiah reigns.\u2026 (5) This kingdom must become an eternal kingdom. Since the \u201cthrone,\u201d \u201chouse,\u201d and \u201ckingdom\u201d were all promised to David in perpetuity, there must be no end to Messiah\u2019s reign over David\u2019s kingdom from David\u2019s throne.<\/p>\n
In the realm of Eschatology as it affects Israelology, the Davidic Covenant, if interpreted literally, demands Israel\u2019s preservation as a nation, Israel\u2019s national existence in a land with definite borders similar to those controlled by David, the Messiah\u2019s second coming in order to rule over a literal earthly kingdom. The Messiah\u2019s present seating \u201con the Father\u2019s throne reigning over a spiritual kingdom, the church, simply does not fulfill the promises of the covenant.\u201d
\nFinally, Pentecost discusses the New Covenant:<\/p>\n
Israel, according to this covenant, must be restored to the land of Palestine, which they will possess as their own. This also entails the preservation of the nation. Israel must experience a national conversion, be regenerated, receive the forgiveness of sins and the implantation of a new heart. This takes place following the return of Messiah to the earth. Israel must experience the outpouring of the Holy Spirit so that He may produce righteousness in the individual and teach the individual so that there will be the fulness of knowledge. Israel must receive material blessings from the hand of the King into whose kingdom they have come. Palestine must be reclaimed, rebuilt, and made the glorious center of a new glorious earth in which dwelleth righteousness and peace. The Messiah who came and shed His blood as the foundation of this covenant must personally come back to the earth to effect the salvation, restoration, and blessing of the national Israel. All of these important areas of eschatological study are made necessary by this covenant.<\/p>\n
In the realm of Eschatology as it affects Israelology, the New Covenant, if interpreted literally, demands that Israel be preserved as a nation, be restored and possess the Promised Land, experience a national regeneration and salvation, a national forgiveness of sin, the national outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the conditions of the Messianic Kingdom such as material blessings and a rebuilt land of Israel, characterized by blessing and peace.
\nMcClain also insists on a literal understanding of the covenants and promises for the development of a proper Eschatology. He states that when the prophets spoke about the Mediatorial Kingdom, they consistently related it to Israel. The many promises of the prophets were \u201cpromises made to the Old Testament people of Israel.\u201d These promises include being made \u201cthe head over all other nations, both religiously and politically.\u201d As was seen in preceding chapters, such a picture does not sit well with Covenant Theology. They are those described by McClain who \u201cdeny the historical continuity of the Israel of the future Kingdom with the Israel of Old Testament history.\u201d The author then goes on to show that these have two types of \u201chermeneutical schemes \u2026 to implement the denial.\u201d The first is to claim that these prophecies and promises have already been fulfilled \u201cin the historic return of the exiles from the Babylonian captivity.\u201d The second system is to allegorize these prophecies and see them being fulfilled spiritually in a spiritual Israel, meaning the Church, \u201chaving no genuine nexus with the historical nation.\u201d McClain feels that these \u201cattempts to eviscerate the promises of God to the Israel of history cannot be sustained in the face of the Biblical testimony,\u201d and he gives seven reasons for it. First, the prophets predicted a world-wide dispersion of Israel among the Gentile nations with \u201cthe loss of their place in the promised land,\u201d and no one denies that this has been literally fulfilled to \u201cthe Israel of Old Testament history.\u201d Second, these same prophets also predicted that even in the dispersion, \u201cthere will be no absolute break in the historical continuity of the nation.\u201d Third, these same prophets promised that there would be \u201ca restoration of the nation.\u201d Fourth, these same prophets predicted that \u201cthe promised restoration of historic Israel will involve a regathering of the dispersed nation back into the land from which they were cast out.\u201d Fifth, the prophets also promised \u201ca restoration of ancient privileges and rights\u201d and a future dominion that would \u201csurpass all the glories of the past.\u201d Sixth, the prophets timed the fulfillment of these prophecies as happening in \u201cthe last days\u201d which puts these prophecies into the eschatological future; therefore, they \u201ccannot be regarded as fulfilled by any partial restorations in the past.\u201d Seventh, the prophets predicted a restoration from which there will never again be another exile or dispersion, and this did not happen with the return from Babylon. McClain then closes his discussion by summarizing Ezekiel 37. This prophecy predicts that after a long dispersion the Jews \u201cwill again be made a nation,\u201d and, furthermore, they will become \u201cone nation.\u201d The author observes that \u201cin no place throughout this remarkable chapter is there any point where the historical continuity may be broken.\u201d His conclusion is that the \u201cOld Testament nation of Israel, historically ruptured and scattered among the nations, is the nation which in the prophets is again restored and reunited in the future Kingdom of God.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. The Rapture and the Tribulation<\/p>\n
Ryrie brings in Israelology when discussing the \u201cBeginning of the Tribulation.\u201d For Dispensational Israelology, it is important to carefully delineate what part Israel plays in each facet of the prophetic scheme. On the issue of the Rapture, Dispensationalism is pretribulational. Because of this, most pretribulationists have assumed that the Rapture will begin the Tribulation. As Ryrie points out, that need not be true. Saying that the Rapture is pretribulational does not mean it comes just before for \u201cactually nothing is said in the Scriptures as to whether or not some time (or how much time) may elapse between the Rapture and the beginning of the Tribulation.\u201d The starting point of the Tribulation is the signing of a seven year covenant between Israel and the Antichrist. White not all will agree that the Antichrist is to be labeled as \u201cthe leader of the \u2018Federated States of Europe,\u2019 \u201d the main point is correct: the Tribulation can only begin with the signing of a seven year covenant between Israel and the Antichrist. In that sense, Israel plays a key role for the beginning of the Tribulation. At that point, \u201cGod will once again turn His attention in a special way to His people the Jews and to His holy city Jerusalem.\u201d When this covenant is made, it will somehow guarantee Israel\u2019s security and so \u201cthe outlook for Israel will seem bright.\u201d However, as the Tribulation continues, all this will change.
\nIn dealing with the Rapture, Pentecost defends the pretribulational position. Among his evidences is the \u201cdistinctions between Israel and the Church.\u201d After listing the twenty-four contrasts made by Chafer, Pentecost concludes:<\/p>\n
These clear contrasts, which show the distinction between Israel and the church, make it impossible to identify the two in one program, which it is necessary to do if the church goes through the seventieth week. These distinctions give further support to the pretribulation rapture position.<\/p>\n
In this case, Israelology is used to defend pretribulationism, and it is a valid use. As was shown previously, Ladd\u2019s posttribulationism was based primarily on a lack of a proper Israelology and a lack of making a distinction between Israel and the Church.
\nLater, Pentecost again touches on Israelology when he discusses the \u201cPurpose of the Tribulation\u201d:<\/p>\n
The first great purpose of the tribulation is to prepare the nation Israel for her Messiah. The prophecy of Jeremiah (30:7) makes it clear that this time that is coming has particular reference to Israel, for it is \u201cthe time of Jacob\u2019s trouble.\u201d<\/p>\n
A major purpose for the Great Tribulation is to bring about Israel\u2019s national salvation. \u201cGod\u2019s purpose for Israel in the Tribulation is to bring about the conversion of a multitude of Jews,\u201d and these will be the ones to enter the Messianic Kingdom \u201cand experience the fulfillment of all Israel\u2019s covenants.\u201d
\nMcClain views the period of the Great Tribulation as the final preparation before the Messianic Kingdom, and this seventieth week of Daniel \u201cis perfectly consistent with the purposes of God for the nation of Israel.\u201d This is natural for to Israel belongs \u201cin a peculiar covenantal sense the future Messianic Kingdom.\u201d Although in this age Israel \u201chas been set aside temporarily\u201d because of her rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus, it is to be expected \u201cthat this nation would once more appear as the object of God\u2019s special concern when He prepares judicially to establish on earth the long-expected Kingdom.\u201d For that reason, Israel once again appears \u201cin her place of national distinction during the period of judgments preparatory for the Kingdom.\u201d The author then provides the evidence for this \u201crestored distinction\u201d of Israel. The first is the 144,000 which McClain has no problem in accepting as Jews, while Ladd tried his best to avoid such a conclusion. McClain notes that the 144,000 are \u201cdefinitely distinguished from the uncounted multitude from \u2018all nations\u2019 \u201d later in the same chapter, though Ladd tried hard to make both groups one and the same, totally ignoring both the meaning of the simple words and the context. Second, God\u2019s testimony \u201cduring this period is directed primarily toward the nation of Israel.\u201d Third, the two witnesses of Revelation seven \u201care certainly Jewish in origin.\u201d Fourth, the Woman of Revelation 12 \u201cis unmistakably identified with the Israel of history.\u201d Although she \u201cis the special object of persecution by the beast, [she] is divinely preserved throughout the terrible period of his reign.\u201d Fifth, all persecutions of Israel, \u201cboth past and future, [are] traced back to Satan himself\u201d who \u201cmeets defeat at the hand of Michael \u2026 the great angel to whom has been divinely assigned the protection of the interests of Israel.\u201d McClain concludes that the Israel that \u201cappears within the frame of end-time events, as the object of God\u2019s special concern, is the Israel of Old Testament history.\u201d Speaking of Covenant Theology, the author states that the \u201cattempts of spiritualizing interpreters to identify this Israel with the Church, and to find the fulfilment of the predictions of Revelation 12 and 13 in history, have not succeeded.\u201d
\nIn conjunction with the Great Tribulation, the key issues that concern Israelology are the identification of the 144,000 Jews and the Woman of Revelation 12.<\/p>\n
a. The 144,000 Jews and the Remnant of Israel<\/p>\n
While Ladd and other Covenant Theologians try very hard to make the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 into non-Jews, though Jewish tribes are carefully listed, Dispensationalist Ryrie has no problem taking the text as it reads and identifies the 144,000 as Jews. It is by means of these 144,000 that the gospel will be proclaimed to all nations during the Tribulation.
\nThese 144,000 come up again in a later chapter entitled, \u201cPopulating the Millennial Kingdom,\u201d where he provides a pretribulational answer as to who enters the Messianic Kingdom. The 144,000 are again identified as Jews and will be among those to enter the Messianic Kingdom. Beyond these will be \u201cthe faithful Jewish survivors of Ezekiel 20:38.\u201d
\nLater, in the same chapter, Ryrie again discusses the 144,000. Ryrie rejects the posttribulational position, \u201cthe 144,000 Jews to be \u2018spiritual Israel\u2019 \u201d which is forced to keep this group in an unsaved state throughout the Tribulation. Ryrie insists on taking the text literally and takes them to be Jews who will be saved at the beginning of the Tribulation. The very fact that they \u201chave the seal of the living God,\u201d and are \u201cthe bond servants of our God,\u201d simply makes it unreasonable that they are unsaved during the Tribulation.
\nPentecost discusses the 144,000 Jews in conjunction with the doctrine of the remnant. This he does in five categories, the first of which is the \u201cnecessity of a remnant.\u201d The necessity of the existence of a believing Jewish remnant is based on the four unconditional and eternal covenants God made with Israel, and the very nature of these covenants \u201cdemands the existence of a remnant to whom and through whom these covenants can be fulfilled.\u201d The Abrahamic Covenant promised \u201ca land, a seed, and a blessing, which would be universal and eternal.\u201d This requires \u201ca remnant to be that promised seed, who can occupy the land given that seed and through whom the promised blessing may come.\u201d The Palestinian Covenant \u201cgives the basis on which Israel will occupy the land,\u201d and this makes \u201cthe existence of a remnant imperative to receive the promised inheritance of the land.\u201d The Davidic Covenant promised \u201ca king, a kingdom, and a throne to the seed of Abraham,\u201d and \u201can everlasting earthly kingdom over which David\u2019s son should reign.\u201d This fact also necessitates \u201ca remnant to whom the promises of the Davidic covenant can be fulfilled.\u201d The New Covenant promised a national salvation and restoration of Israel and so \u201cthere must be a remnant of the nation continuing with whom God can fulfill His word.\u201d Finally, the very character of God requires the existence of a remnant, for \u201cGod has made these solemn promises to the nation Israel\u201d and \u201cthe very character of God is at stake in their fulfillment.\u201d God\u2019s integrity \u201cmakes the existence of a remnant necessary.\u201d
\nIn the second category, Pentecost summarizes the \u201cremnant in Israel\u2019s history\u201d:<\/p>\n
Even a casual survey of Israel\u2019s recorded history will establish the principle that God dealt with a believing remnant within the nation. Caleb and Joshua (Num. 13\u201314), Deborah and Barak (Judges 4), Gideon (Judges 7), Samson (Judges 13\u201317), Samuel (1 Sam. 2), the Levites in Jeroboam\u2019s day (2 Chron. 11:14\u201316), Asa (2 Chron. 15:9), the seven thousand faithful ones in the days of Elijah (1 Kings 19:18) all illustrate this point.\u2026 God preserved for Himself a faithful, believing, witnessing remnant in times of apostasy, persecution, and indifference.<\/p>\n
In the third category, he summarizes the \u201cremnant in the prophets\u201d:<\/p>\n
It would be Impossible to cite all the references to the remnant in the prophetic books. A few passages will be cited to show that such a subject is a main line of prophetic revelation. Isaiah speaks of it in 1:9; 4:3\u20134; 6:12\u201313; 10:21; 26:20; 49:6; 51:1; 65:13\u201314. Entire chapters, such as twenty-six, thirty-three, thirty-five, and sixty-five, are devoted to it. Jeremiah follows the same theme in passages such as Jeremiah 15:11; 33:25\u201326, and 44:28. The entire passage in chapters thirty through thirty-three is based upon the existence of the remnant. Ezekiel takes up the theme in such references as 14:22; 20:34\u201338; 37:21\u201322. It appears again in the other prophets: Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11\u201315; Zechariah 13:8\u20139; Malachi 3:16\u201317.<\/p>\n
In the fourth category, the author summarizes the \u201cremnant in the New Testament.\u201d Pentecost affirms the existence of a special Jewish remnant even throughout the gospel period which was \u201ca believing group within the spared nation.\u201d It is important to realize that the Remnant of Israel is always within Israel and not outside of it. The ministry of John, Jesus, the twelve and the seventy disciples was all limited to Israel as a nation and the kingdom was offered to Israel alone; but it is also true that \u201cGod was dealing throughout Christ\u2019s earthly ministry with the remnant that existed then.\u201d However, Pentecost then reveals the persistent weakness of Dispensationalism in developing a theology of Israel Present. He states that between the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus until the Great Tribulation \u201cit is not possible to refer to a remnant of the nation Israel.\u201d However, this is simply not true, as Romans 11 makes very clear. Pentecost declares that in \u201cthe body of Christ all national distinctions disappear,\u201d but the Bible nowhere teaches this; for in every context where the Scriptures teach that there is \u201cneither Jew nor Greek\u201d it is speaking of how one is saved. Earlier in his own work, Pentecost showed that there is still a distinction between Jewish believers and Gentiles believers, so he goes well beyond the text with such declarative statements. Pentecost is correct in that all \u201cJews who are saved are not saved into a national relationship, but into a relationship to Christ in that body of believers\u201d; however, the point is that these Jews who become believers do not lose their nationality, their Jewishness, anymore than Gentiles cease to be Gentiles. The author\u2019s declaration that \u201cthere is no continuing remnant of Israel with whom God is particularly dealing today\u201d is simply a false conclusion. There is always a remnant of the Israel which is the \u201cIsrael of God\u201d of Galatians 6:15\u201316. Paul\u2019s argument in Romans 11:1\u201310 is to emphasize that there is still a Remnant of Israel today. Pentecost does make reference to Romans 11:5 and correctly rejects the view of Covenant Theology \u201cthat the church becomes the remnant and will be the witness in and through whom the promises of God are fulfilled to a \u2018spiritual\u2019 Israel.\u201d Nevertheless, Romans 11 does speak of a Jewish remnant in this present age of grace, and the Remnant of Israel is always part of the nation and not apart from it. The point is that there is still a Remnant of Israel today. True, all Jewish believers are part of the Church, but they are still part of Israel, for they and they alone make up the \u201cIsrael of God.\u201d These unproven statements Pentecost makes reflect a poor development of Israelology as it relates to Israel Present.
\nIn the fifth category, Pentecost deals extensively with the \u201cremnant in Revelation.\u201d Pentecost begins the discussion on the remnant in Revelation by referring to Paul\u2019s comments in Romans 11. He points out that 11:25 teaches that \u201cthe blindness of Israel is a temporary blindness,\u201d but then he repeats his error of the previous section by deducting a false conclusion: \u201cBecause the nation is now blinded, God can not have a remnant within the nation with whom the covenants will be fulfilled.\u201d The point of Romans 11:1\u201320 is exactly the opposite: that God does have a believing Remnant of Israel today. Not only does Romans 11:25 teach that \u201cthe blindness of Israel is temporary blindness,\u201d it also teaches that this blindness is in part, that is, it is a partial blindness, for there are Jews who believe. It is that part of Israel which is not blinded that makes up the Remnant of Israel today. Pentecost goes on to say that \u201cthe \u2018all Israel\u2019 in Romans 11:26\u201d refers to the \u201cbelieving remnant, the believing Jews at the second advent of Christ.\u201d What is not at all clear from Pentecost is the question as to whether or not the all Israel which makes up the Remnant of Israel at the second coming includes all Jews living at that time; the implication is that it does not.
\nHaving given this as an introduction, Pentecost moves on to discuss the remnant in Revelation in six points. The first point is the \u201cexistence of the remnant.\u201d Pentecost concludes that the very fact that Satan attacks Israel in the Tribulation, an Israel that has \u201cregathered in unbelief back to the land\u201d and is now forced \u201cto flee for preservation from the Satanic attack\u201d shows that \u201ca remnant does exist in the tribulation period,\u201d and it is \u201cthis remnant that God is preparing for the fulfillment of all Israel\u2019s covenants and promises.\u201d The second point is the \u201cstatus of this remnant.\u201d Again, Pentecost states that Israel, when regathered before the Tribulation, \u201cis still in unbelief.\u201d However, God intends to bring the nation to salvation and will use a variety of means, such as the Scriptures, the work of the Holy Spirit in \u201cconvicting and enlightening,\u201d miraculous signs, \u201cthe ministry of the 144,000 sealed of Israel\u201d of Revelation seven and the two witnesses of Revelation 11. Pentecost feels that \u201cthe majority will not repent,\u201d but \u201csome may be turned to Jehovah by these signs.\u201d In passing, it should be noted that Pentecost understands the 144,000 to speak of literal Jews, and he will develop this point later; but insofar as the status of the remnant is concerned, the entire nation is \u201cunsaved at the beginning of the tribulation,\u201d though throughout the Tribulation many Jewish \u201cindividuals are experiencing salvation\u201d and \u201cthe nation will be saved finally at the second advent.\u201d The third point is the \u201cmeans of salvation of the remnant.\u201d The remnant will come to saving faith because the Holy Spirit will still be active in the Tribulation, though some of His ministries will differ from the way He operates today. Furthermore, according to Matthew 24:14, there will be the preaching of \u201cthe gospel of the kingdom\u201d which includes \u201ctwo distinct facets\u201d: the proclamation of the coming of the kingdom; and, \u201cthat the salvation is through the blood of the lamb.\u201d The fourth point concerns the \u201cministry of the remnant,\u201d and Pentecost believes that \u201cthis believing remnant holds the position of a witnessing body during the tribulation period.\u201d The very purpose of Israel\u2019s calling in the Old Testament, to be \u201cthe witness for God to the nations of the earth,\u201d will be fulfilled by the remnant in the Tribulation, for \u201cGod will raise up a faithful witness during the tribulation to fulfill this original purpose for this nation.\u201d The fifth point is the \u201crelation of the 144,000 to the remnant.\u201d Covenant Theologians, including premillennial ones like Ladd, struggle hard and use all sorts of exegetical gymnastics to try to prove that the 144,000 Jews are not Jews and that the twelve tribes of Israel are not the twelve tribes of Israel but are somehow representative of the Church; however, Pentecost, like all Dispensationalists, takes the text at face value and accepts the 144,000 to be Jews. He has no trouble making the twelve tribes of Israel mean the twelve tribes of Israel. His concern here is to determine just how these 144,000 Jews of Revelation seven relate to the remnant. Just as in the Old Testament God had \u201ca remnant within the remnant of the nation,\u201d Pentecost views the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 to \u201cconstitute a special part of the remnant of Israel, set apart by a sovereign act of God, to be special witness during the tribulation period.\u201d While a minority of Dispensationalists viewed the figure 144,000 as a figurative number \u201cto symbolize an innumerable host of Israel saved during the tribulation,\u201d and, therefore, \u201cmake the 144,000 identical to the saved of Israel of the tribulation period,\u201d Pentecost speaks for the majority of Dispensationalists by taking the figure literally. This is an exact number because of their special role in the Tribulation. They are sealed for the purpose of being preserved through the Tribulation and, therefore, \u201care not subject to death.\u201d For that reason, they \u201cmust be viewed as a separate company.\u201d Pentecost concludes that \u201csince Israel is literal here and the tribes are literal, it would seem best to take the numbers literally also.\u201d Because these are set apart by God as special witnesses, then there should be no problem with such a specific number like 144,000, and no reason not to take that figure literally. The 144,000 are to be viewed as being \u201cpart of the remnant of Israel, but not the entire remnant itself.\u201d This is obvious from at least one fact alone: the 144,000 are saved at the beginning of the Tribulation, while the nation or \u201cthe remnant of Romans 11:26 is not converted until the second advent of Christ. Furthermore, these 144,000 are not only a part of the remnant, they \u201care ministering as sealed witnesses immediately after the church has been raptured.\u201d Pentecost views them as carrying out the program of world evangelism in the Tribulation. A minority of Dispensationalists have held to the view that the 144,000 of Revelation seven are a distinct group from the 144,000 of Revelation 14, but Pentecost again speaks for the majority of Dispensationalists by making them the same group. Since to separate them requires one \u201cto spiritualize certain things in the two chapters,\u201d it is wiser to stick to a literal interpretation and to \u201cmake them identical.\u201d The 144,000 in Revelation seven are \u201cset apart \u2026 before the great tribulation begins\u201d and are \u201csealed at the very outset of the tribulation period.\u201d The myriad of Gentiles saved \u201ccome to a knowledge of salvation through the ministry of this group.\u201d In Revelation 14, the same 144,000 are viewed as being with the Messiah in the Messianic Kingdom. These 144,000 Jews are called the firstfruits which means \u201cthey are the first of the harvest of the tribulation period that will come into the millennium to populate the millennial earth.\u201d They are the firstfruit of many more Jews to come to saving faith. The sixth point concerns the \u201cdestiny of the remnant.\u201d The specific destiny of the remnant is the Messianic Kingdom when their Messiah will rule over them from the Throne of David. Pentecost concludes that the \u201cpromises are not heavenly, but earthly, and will be fulfilled in the millennium.\u201d<\/p>\n
b. The Woman of Revelation 12<\/p>\n
Covenant Theologians try to identify the Woman as the Church. Pentecost presents the dispensational view. Pentecost rejects the view of Covenant Theology that this Woman represents the Church for two reasons: first, this view \u201cis built on the allegorizing principle of interpretation\u201d; and, second, it creates an anachronism in that it would mean that the Church produced the Messiah instead of the Messiah producing the Church. The view of Dispensationalism is that this Woman \u201crepresents the nation Israel.\u201d Pentecost provides ten reasons for this view, not all of them of equal weight. First, contextually, \u201cJohn is dealing with the nation Israel.\u201d Second, \u201cin the Old Testament the sun, moon, and stars are used in reference to Israel.\u201d Pentecost cites several examples, but the key one is Genesis 37, which is the actual background to Revelation 12. This is the most conclusive evidence for identifying who the Woman is and may be the only one really necessary. Third, is the number twelve which \u201cnot only represents the twelve tribes of Israel, but is used in Scripture as the governmental number.\u201d Since \u201cthe woman represents \u2026 divine government in the earth, and Israel is God\u2019s appointed instrument to that end, this woman must be identified as Israel.\u201d Fourth, the term woman is \u201cused frequently in the Old Testament to refer to the nation Israel.\u201d The Church is referred to as a bride or a virgin, but never as a woman. Fifth, the adversary is called a dragon and in the Old Testament it is used \u201cto describe some particular adversary of the nation Israel.\u201d Sixth, the place of Israel\u2019s flight is the wilderness, and it \u201ccan not be gainsaid that the wilderness has particular reference to Israel in her national history.\u201d Seventh, the man child of this chapter is the Messiah and it was Israel and not the Church that produced the Messiah. Furthermore, the \u201cparallelism between Revelation 12 and Micah 5 helps to identify the woman as Israel.\u201d Micah prophesies the birth of the Messiah and the rejection of Him leading to \u201cthe setting aside of the nation \u2026 until the accomplishment of God\u2019s purpose,\u201d which is the \u201csame program \u2026 outlined in Revelation 12.\u201d Eighth, Romans 9:4\u20135 teaches that Israel produced the Messiah. Since the Man Child of Revelation 12 is the Messiah, and since He was produced by the Woman, then \u201cthe woman must be identified as Israel.\u201d Ninth, twice this passage mentions the 1,260 days which is a reference to the second half of the seven years of Tribulation. Every time this period is mentioned, whether in terms of 1,260 days, 42 months, or 3\u20131\/2 years, \u201cit always refers to Israel and a period in which God is dealing with that nation.\u201d Tenth, is the mention of Michael who, according to Daniel 12:1 is the guardian angel of Israel. In Daniel, \u201cMichael is united with the destiny of Israel.\u201d In Revelation 12, the mention of Michael \u201cindicates that God is again dealing with the nation Israel, and Michael is an actor here because the destiny of Israel is involved.\u201d Pentecost concludes that the Woman \u201ccan be none other than Israel, with whom God has His covenants, and to whom those covenants will be fulfilled.\u201d Again, all Dispensationalists would agree that the Woman represents Israel, but not all would use every one of these ten arguments as evidence.<\/p>\n
3. Romans 11:25\u201327, the Second Coming, and the National Salvation of Israel<\/p>\n
Chafer affirms that \u201cIsrael as a nation is to be saved from her sin,\u201d which is connected with the second coming \u201cwhen He shall return to the earth.\u201d Chafer does not make it clear whether this national salvation comes before, during, or after the second coming.
\nWhat is clear is that Chafer believed that Israel would undergo a special judgment following the second coming in order to determine who would or would not enter the Messianic Kingdom. This judgment would not only include living Israel, but also the Old Testament saints who would be resurrected at that time. It would \u201cinclude all of that nation who in past dispensations have lived under the covenants and promises.\u201d Chafer\u2019s conclusion is that \u201ca resurrection of those generations of Israel is called for and must precede their judgment.\u201d While many Dispensationalists hold to this position, it is not true of all nor is this germane to Dispensationalism. Other Dispensationalists hold that the Great Tribulation itself is the judgment upon Israel and at the end of this period, two-thirds of the nation is killed while the remaining third comprise the all Israel that will be saved. The fact of a national salvation of surviving Israel preceding the second coming precludes a special judgment following the second coming.
\nChafer cites three passages which he feels prove \u201cthe future judgment of Israel.\u201d The first is Ezekiel 20:33\u201344. However, nothing in this passage states that the judgment described takes place after the second coming. As Chafer himself observed, Ezekiel draws a simile with the Exodus and the Wilderness Wanderings. The judgment declared upon Israel at Kadesh Barnea was a period of forty years, during which time the rebels were purged out. By the same token, the Tribulation as a judgment is a period of time when once again the rebels are to be purged out. The judgment at Kadesh Barnea was in the wilderness; in the Tribulation, the Jews are in the wilderness again (Rev. 12:6). This passage is better understood as referring to the judgment of the Great Tribulation itself, which will be especially severe for Israel (Matt. 24:15\u201322), rather than a special judgment of Israel following the second coming. Furthermore, Chafer deduces much more than the text allows when he states that what Ezekiel described as concerning \u201call generations of that people\u201d and so concludes that this passage \u201cis not restricted to the last generation alone who will be on the earth at the time of this judgment.\u201d This cannot be derived exegetically from the text. This can no more be true than to claim that the Wilderness Wanderings and the judgment of Kadesh Barnea included all Jewish generations of all time. The second passage Chafer cites is Malachi 3:2\u20136. However, there is no clear statement here that points to a special judgment of Israel. As Chafer observed, there is no clear dividing line in this passage between the first and second coming. More likely, in light of the fact that verse one did predict the coming of John the Baptist, this passage speaks of the first coming. The judgment described can then be understood as a judgment for rejecting \u201cthe messenger of the covenant,\u201d or the Messiah, and the final judgment for this sin is the Great Tribulation. There is no necessity to conclude that this \u201cpassage describes the final judgment of Israel that will occur when the King returns.\u201d The third passage Chafer uses is Matthew 24:37\u201325:30. There is no question that in parabolic form this describes a judgment at the time of the second coming. However, does it refer to a judgment of Israel? The text never states it to be the case and one must assume, as Chafer does, that the householder, virgins, and talents all refer to Israel. Chafer\u2019s main reason for this conclusion is that these cannot refer to the Church. This is correct, but it is not the only option. Rather than seeing the parables of Matthew 24:37\u201325:30 as dealing with a different subject than the judgment of the Gentiles in Matthew 25:31\u201346, it is better to view it as speaking of the same thing. In this view, as Jesus does many times, He first speaks parabolically and then applies it to a specific situation. The parables of the householder, virgins, and talents speak parabolically of the judgment of the Gentiles and they emphasize the principles of watchfulness, readiness, and laboring. Then the application of the points of the parables is made to the judgment of the Gentiles. The sheep Gentiles were those who were watching, ready, and laboring, while the goat Gentiles were not. Contextually, there is no reason to assume that these parables speak of a judgment of Israel (whose regathering was already spoken of in 24:31) and every reason to view it as a judgment of the Gentiles to take place at the time of Israel\u2019s final restoration (cf. Joel 3:1\u20133).
\nIn Ryrie\u2019s view, at the second coming all Jews who survive the Tribulation will be brought before Christ for judgment. At this judgment, as many as two-thirds will be purged out and \u201cexcluded from the kingdom.\u201d The remaining third, \u201cwho turn in faith when they see Him\u201d will be the ones who will enter the kingdom along with the 144,000 Jews. These believing survivors\u201d are the ones who make up the all Israel of Romans 11:26. However, other Dispensationalists see the purging of the two-thirds as occurring during the Tribulation. The one third which are left are the ones who will turn to the Messiah, constitute the all Israel, and become believers before the Messiah returns. In fact, He will return as a result of Israel\u2019s national salvation.
\nWalvoord discusses \u201cThe Premillennial Concept of the Second Advent\u201d:<\/p>\n
Premillenarians hold to a literal, bodily, visible, and glorious return of Christ to the earth, fulfilling the many Scriptural prophecies of this event. They hold that this event is the occasion for the deliverance and judgment of Israel, the downfall and judgment of the Gentiles, the inauguration of the kingdom of righteousness on earth.<\/p>\n
What relates to Israelology is the fact that with the second coming will come \u201cthe deliverance and judgment of Israel.\u201d Like Chafer and Ryrie, Walvoord also believed in a special judgment of Israel following the second coming. The second coming will also mark the end of the Times of the Gentiles which will permit the dominant role that Israel will have in the Messianic Kingdom.
\nLater, Walvoord gives two reasons for the second coming. The first is \u201cto deliver the elect\u201d:<\/p>\n
The second advent of Christ to the earth not only brings judgment upon the wicked, but it is an event which brings deliverance to the elect, the saved of both Jews and Gentiles, and to the nation Israel as such.\u2026 The same idea is indicated in Romans 11:26\u201327 \u2026 Luke 21:28 indicates that when they shall see the second advent of Christ they are exhorted to \u201clook up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh.\u201d This is in keeping with many passages in the Old Testament which likewise describe deliverance that will take place at the time of the second advent (cf. Zech. 14:1\u20134).<\/p>\n
The second is \u201cto bring spiritual revival to Israel\u201d:<\/p>\n
Along with the deliverance of the godly, the Scriptures predict that at the second coming Israel will experience spiritual revival. This is intimated in Romans 11:26\u201327 and is involved in the fulfillment of numerous Old Testament passages of which Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 may be taken as representative.<\/p>\n
Walvoord also believes in a distinct judgment of Israel after the second coming and this is based on Ezekiel 20:33\u201338. But as Walvoord himself states, during the Great Tribulation \u201conly one third of the living Jews in the land will survive,\u201d citing Zecheriah 13:8\u20139. However, according to this same passage, the entire one-third remaining is brought through the fire of judgment by which the entire one-third is refined and saved. In light of this passage, the Tribulation itself is the judgment upon Israel and all those who survive until the second coming are believers. For that reason, there is no need for a separate judgment after the second coming. The Ezekiel passage then, could also be understood as speaking of the Tribulation judgment rather than a special judgment of Israel following the second coming. Walvoord is correct that this passage is \u201cin a context of predictions of judgment upon Israel\u201d and is \u201cthe climactic judgment of God upon the nation,\u201d but all this is true if the Tribulation itself is taken as that judgment. It is also true that verses 34\u201335 place the judgment after Israel\u2019s regathering, but it need not be \u201cthe final regathering of Israel\u201d as Walvoord assumes. Actually, the final regathering into the land is spoken of in verse 38 which comes after the judgment. The regathering of verses 34\u201335 precedes the judgment. For that reason, it is better to take the regathering of verses 34\u201335 to speak of the regathering of Israel before the Tribulation. This regathering is now visible with the modern State of Israel, which Walvoord himself sees as having prophetic significance. Following this regathering, comes the judgment of verses 36\u201337 which is best understood to be the judgment of the Tribulation. It is during this period that the \u201crebels\u201d are purged out (the two-thirds) and the rest are refined and saved. Then those who become believers become part of the final regathering of verse 38.
\nWalvoord notes that this passage says nothing of the resurrection from the dead and concludes that this judgment concerns \u201cthe living Israelites in the world at the time of the second coming.\u201d The alternative view is that this passage concerns \u201cliving Israelites in the world\u201d at the time of the Tribulation. As part of his evidences for the timing of the Ezekiel judgment, Walvoord cites the parables of Matthew 24\u201325 which he claims that \u201cwith the exception of Matthew 25:31\u201346, to deal primarily with God\u2019s judgments upon Israel.\u201d Matthew 25:31\u201346 deals with the judgment of the Gentiles. This is preceded by five parables which Walvoord interprets to represent the judgment of Israel following the second coming. However, none of the five parables actually mention Israel and may be better viewed as parabolic preludes to the judgment of the Gentiles which does come after the Great Tribulation. There is no exegetical necessity to interpret these parables as speaking of a judgment of Israel or to connect them with the Ezekiel judgment. However, all Dispensationalists believe that the judgment is one of physical death and that the surviving remnant enters into the millennial land of Israel where they will be joined by the resurrected Old Testament saints. At that time, the \u201cOld Testament saints and resurrected Israel\u201d will be \u201cgiven their places of honor and privilege and are associated with Christ in His millennial government.\u201d
\nAccording to Pentecost, one of the results of the second coming will be the resurrection of Israel. The issue is whether the Old Testament saints are resurrected with the Church at the Rapture or only after the second coming. Many Dispensationalists historically have taught that the Old Testament saints are resurrected at the Rapture before the Tribulation. Pentecost rejects this position for it was largely \u201cbased on the preconceived idea that the church and Israel are to be raised together,\u201d and had resulted from a spiritualized interpretation of both Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 26:19. Pentecost instead offers an alternative dispensational view which accepts both the Daniel and Isaiah passages literally as speaking of Israel\u2019s resurrection. The Daniel passage places the resurrection of Israel after the Tribulation as Israel is rescued from the Antichrist. The Isaiah passage puts the resurrection of Israel only after \u201cthe indignation be overpast\u201d (Isa. 26:20), and Pentecost interprets \u201cthe indignation\u201d as \u201cnone other than the tribulation period and the resurrection of Israel is said to take place at the termination of that period.\u201d Pentecost believes that \u201cIsrael\u2019s resurrection takes place at the second advent of Christ,\u201d which is only after the Tribulation. The Rapture \u201cincludes only those who are \u2018in Christ\u2019 \u2026 and Israel does not have this position.\u201d Pentecost concludes that \u201cthe resurrection of the church and Israel take[s] place at two different times\u201d for \u201cScripture shows that Israel will be resurrected at the close of the tribulation period, while the church will be resurrected prior to it.\u201d As for the Ezekiel 37 passage, both the immediate and wider context shows that Ezekiel is using symbolic language and actions. Pentecost concludes that this passage is not speaking of Israel\u2019s resurrection, but of Israel\u2019s restoration.
\nLike all those cited before him, Pentecost also believes that Israel will undergo a special separate judgment after the second coming; but, again, it must be stated that this is not the only dispensational option, for others view the Great Tribulation itself as a judgment upon Israel and, therefore, there is no need for another special one after the second coming. Pentecost is correct that \u201cthe future judgment program will begin with a judgment upon the nation Israel,\u201d and that \u201cbefore the [Messianic] kingdom can be instituted \u2026 there must be a judgment on Israel to determine those that will enter into the kingdom.\u201d However, this can all be accomplished if the Tribulation itself is that very judgment.
\nPentecost deals with this matter in five categories. The first category concerns the \u201ctime of the judgment.\u201d He states that the \u201cclearest indication of the time of Israel\u2019s judgment is given to us in the chronology of prophesied events \u2026 in Matthew 24 and 25.\u201d His conclusion is that the chronology of events given in Matthew 24\u201325 shows \u201cthe judgment on Israel follows the second advent of Christ to the earth and the consequent regathering of Israel as a nation.\u201d However, the specific segment to which Pentecost refers is the five parables of Matthew 24:43\u201325:30 which are all parables and none of them actually state that Israel is in view. Pentecost is forced to assume that they speak of a special judgment of Israel, though the text never states it. An alternative explanation is that all five parables are a prelude to the judgment of the Gentiles in 25:31\u201346 and, therefore, describe this judgment parabolically. For Pentecost, this passage is the \u201cclearest indication of the time of Israel\u2019s judgment,\u201d but it is based on a presupposition as to whom the parables refer. The second category is the \u201cplace of the judgment.\u201d Pentecost concludes that this \u201cjudgment must take place on earth\u201d; and then, citing Ezekiel 20:34\u201335, he places the judgment at Kadesh Barnea, assuming that this was Ezekiel\u2019s intent when he spoke of the judgment as taking place in the wilderness. It is, of course, true that the judgment upon Israel will take place on earth; but Ezekiel need not be understood as referring to a special judgment following the second coming, but rather as referring to the whole Tribulation period which is the judgment upon Israel. During the persecutions of the Tribulation, the rebels will be purged out, and in that way they will not enter the millennial Israel. As for Ezekiel\u2019s wilderness, Revelation 12:6, 13\u201314, prophesies that in the Tribulation Israel will flee into the wilderness. During the second half of the Tribulation, she experiences the judgment of God while in the wilderness, whether that of Kadesh Barnea or elsewhere, such as the Wilderness of the Land of Edom. Again, there is no need to suppose that this requires a special judgment of Israel following the second coming. The third category is \u201cthe ones judged.\u201d According to Pentecost, this judgment will be \u201call living Israel\u201d that will survive the Tribulation. It will not, however, include \u201cresurrected Israel.\u201d The fourth category is \u201cthe basis of the judgment.\u201d Pentecost states that this judgment is \u201cto separate the saved from the unsaved in Israel,\u201d to be determined by their works. As evidence, he again cites Matthew 25:1\u201330, but this passage contains parables and does not explicitly state that it is a judgment of Israel. The citation of Ezekiel 20:37\u201338 and Malachi 3:2\u20133, 5, can also be understood as speaking of the judgment of the Tribulation in general, rather than a special or specific judgment after the second coming. It is at this very point that there is a contradiction in Pentecost\u2019s view and others who hold this view. Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, and Pentecost all affirm that before or at the second coming, all Israel shall be saved. If this is true, and all these men believe it to be true, then there is no need for a special judgment of Israel following the second coming to separate the saved from the unsaved, for all Israel at this point is saved. For this reason, a better dispensational option is to view the Tribulation itself as the judgment upon Israel. The fifth category is the \u201cresult of the judgment.\u201d Pentecost points out that there will be two results: first, \u201cthe unsaved are cut off from the land \u2026 the unsaved are destroyed before the millennial age begins\u201d; and, second, \u201cthe saved are taken into millennial blessings.\u201d Both points are true, but again they can just as easily be accomplished by the Tribulation itself and with the same results.
\nUsing Zecheriah 12:10\u201313:2 as a base, McClain points out six things about Israel\u2019s repentance: first, the timing of it is \u201cafter the judgment upon the nations which come against Jerusalem.\u201d What McClain does not make clear is if this judgment is that of Armageddon or the judgment of the Gentiles following the second coming. Second, the cause will be God, who will pour out His grace upon the nation and a vision of the Messiah which will cause them to realize He is the One they had rejected. Third, this repentance \u201cwill be genuine, not superficial.\u201d Fourth, the repentance will begin with the Jews of Jerusalem and will spread to Jews throughout the land. It will include every family beginning with the House of David and \u201cspreading to \u2018all the families that remain.\u2019 \u201d Fifth, the results will be a national cleansing of the nation from \u201csin and uncleanness.\u201d Sixth, this repentance is \u201cthe preliminary condition for her spiritual ministry to all the nations of the earth.\u201d
\nMcClain also believes in a special judgment of Israel following the second coming and makes the same points made by Pentecost, so no elaboration is necessary.
\nDealing more specifically with Romans 11:25\u201326, this passage concerns the removal of Israel\u2019s blindness and her national salvation. Chafer affirms that this passage clearly teaches a future national salvation of Israel. While it is true that there is to be a future regathering of Israel into their land and a deliverance of Israel from her enemies, the main thrust of the passage is Israel\u2019s salvation \u201cin connection with the second advent of Christ.\u201d Furthermore, this future national salvation is assured on the basis of the death of Christ, \u201cbut the final application of the value of Christ\u2019s death in behalf of Israel awaits the moment of her national conversion.\u201d This will be accomplished instantaneously, \u201cin the briefest portion of time.\u201d Chafer\u2019s conclusion is \u201cthat the nation Israel will yet be saved and her sins removed forever through the blood of Christ.\u201d
\nPentecost emphasizes the removal of the blindness. He begins with a summary of what the New Testament teaches on this subject, which is that \u201cthe nation Israel is a blinded nation.\u201d They are blinded in two ways: first, \u201cthey are spiritually blind because they willfully rejected their Messiah\u201d; and, second, \u201ca divine judgment has come upon them so that the nation is judicially blinded.\u201d What Isaiah 6:9\u201310 predicted would happen is quoted by the New Testament as having happened and Paul, in 1 Corinthians 3:14\u201315, stated that this blindness \u201cwas the continuing state of the people,\u201d though in verse 16 Paul also \u201canticipated that this condition shall change.\u201d The central passage on this issue is Romans 11:17\u201327, which teaches that \u201cIsrael has been set aside from the place of blessing so that the Gentiles might be brought into the place of blessing, from which Israel was cut off and to which they will be returned.\u201d In his exposition of this passage, Pentecost deduces five things. First, this \u201cparticular blindness is a mystery.\u201d This means it was unrevealed in the Old Testament, but is now revealed in the New. The very \u201cfact that this blindness is a mystery shows that it is a kind of blindness hitherto unrevealed.\u201d For that reason, it cannot be a reference to \u201cthe spiritual blindness\u201d common to all men because they are \u201cchildren of Adam,\u201d nor can it be a reference to \u201cwillful blindness\u201d also common among men, for both of these types of blindness were known in the Old Testament. Rather, this is \u201ca new form of blindness, not hitherto experienced by men.\u201d This mystery blindness \u201cwas the divine visitation of Israel by God because of the national sin of rejecting the Messiah.\u201d Second, the \u201cnature of this blindness is revealed,\u201d in that the Greek term pictures it as \u201cthe thick impenetrable covering\u201d which is a result of \u201crepeated rejection of the revelation that was given\u201d and by now \u201chas become the settled condition.\u201d Third, \u201cthis blindness is \u2018in part\u2019 \u201d which \u201creveals that this blindness is not universal.\u201d It is possible for Jewish individuals to be saved, \u201cthough the nation has been judicially blinded.\u201d What Pentecost fails to see is that this very fact allows for the Remnant of Israel to exist even today. Fourth, this blindness is destined to \u201cbe removed from the nation.\u201d The very word until \u201canticipates the removal of this blindness at some appointed time.\u201d Fifth, \u201cthe time of the removal of this blindness is stated,\u201d which is, \u201cuntil the fulness of the Gentiles be come in,\u201d Pentecost interprets this as speaking of \u201cthe rapture of the church when the time of Gentile privilege gives way to the time when Israel will be restored to the place of blessing.\u201d Pentecost then clarifies what the removal of the blindness will actually mean for Israel. It will not mean that all Jews will immediately have a clear understanding of spiritual truth, for they will still have the common human \u201cblindness of his sin nature.\u201d It will render the truth understandable by all Jews who will now be restored \u201cto a place alongside the Gentiles in the place of blessing again.\u201d It means that God will again be dealing with Israel as a nation, which He has not done \u201csince their rejection of the Messiah,\u201d It will set the stage for \u201cthe final removal of blindness, \u2026 the spiritual blindness, \u2026\u201d at the second coming. \u201cThe removal of the judicial blindness permits Israel to hear the good news of the kingdom \u2026 that is proclaimed in that day in order that they might be saved, both individually and nationally.\u201d It is the removal of the judicial blindness that \u201cmakes possible the setting aside of the 144,000, the calling out of the believing remnant, and Israel\u2019s ministry to the nations during the tribulation period.\u201d
\nWalvoord turns his attention to the key verse of Romans 11:25 which speaks of the removal of Israel\u2019s blindness. The dispensational position is \u201cthat Israel as used in this passage refers to the nation Israel and that what is predicted here is their release from the blindness or obtuseness of spiritual discernment which fell on them as a judgment of unbelief.\u201d This blindness was unique in that it was a special judgment upon Israel and for that reason this blindness is designated as a mystery, a truth not revealed in the Old Testament. This mystery, \u201cconsisted in the special judicial blindness \u2026 over and above any natural blindness common to Israel or Gentiles in the past.\u201d This very same special blindness \u201cis scheduled for removal when \u2018the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.\u2019 \u201d Just as \u201cthe fall of Israel is a parallel to the fulness of the Gentiles,\u201d by the same token \u201cthe end of the fulness of the Gentile would parallel the restoration of Israel.\u201d The very word until in this verse marks \u201cthe terminus of Gentile blessing, and the beginning of Israel\u2019s restoration.\u201d
\nAlso commenting on 11:25, McClain states that God intends to restore Israel, and there is \u201ca great mystery\u201d concerning which \u201cthe Gentile Christians should not remain in ignorance of it lest they become wise in their own conceits.\u201d The content of the mystery is that \u201ca hardening in part has befallen Israel,\u201d but this hardening is \u201conly temporary until the \u2018fulness of the Gentiles\u2019 be come in.\u201d This will be followed by another: all Israel shall be saved. The fulness of the Gentiles is \u201cthe present age during which God is visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.\u201d During this period, \u201cGod is visiting the Gentile nations, through the ministry of Gentile believers,\u201d collecting Gentiles for the Body of Christ. Israel during this period \u201cis in the background out of the divine favor\u201d; but when \u201cthe body of Christ is complete\u201d and when \u201cthe full number that God has chosen out of the Gentiles shall be saved,\u201d then Christ will return and \u201cGentile times will finish and Israel shall be put in again.\u201d After the fulness of the Gentiles, all Israel shall he saved, and this means \u201cthe Israel that is on earth is going to be saved.\u201d At the close of this age \u201cthere is to be a \u2018redemption\u2019 or \u2018salvation\u2019 for the nation,\u201d and since Paul \u201cconnects the salvation of Israel with the appearance of the \u2018Deliverer,\u2019 \u201d this event will occur at the second coming. McClain spells out the prerequisite for the second coming: \u201conly one thing was needed to bring Him back from heaven to usher in the glorious age for Israel, and also for the whole world,\u201d and this is Israel\u2019s national salvation. Not all Dispensationalists have been this clear as to what exactly is the basis of the second coming. McClain now presents a full picture of the content of the mystery: first, there \u201cis to be a Gentile age during which God will take from all nations including even Israel, a people for His name\u201d; second, the \u201cnucleus of this people will be the Church formed by the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost\u201d; third, during the same period while \u201cGod is gathering out this people, Israel as a nation is set aside, though the Gospel is still offered to all as individuals\u201d; fourth, once \u201cthe Gentile age has run its full course\u201d and the body is complete, then the Messiah will return; fifth, \u201cthe natural branches shall be grafted back\u201d into the Olive Tree, or the place of blessing; and, sixth, the Messianic Kingdom will be \u201cvisibly and universally established on earth,\u201d and also all Israel shall be saved.
\nTurning to the issue of Israel\u2019s blindness in 11:25, Hoyt states that it is true that Israel has been blinded, but the Gentiles must not be ignorant concerning the nature and purpose of this blindness. Ignorance can cause the Gentiles to \u201cdraw false conclusions\u201d because they \u201cdo not see in perspective all the facts relating to the blindness.\u201d This ignorance has \u201cled Gentiles to believe that they were somehow better than Jews,\u201d and to blame only the Jews for the crucifixion. Hoyt points out that such a conclusion is \u201cutterly false,\u201d for \u201cChrist died because of the sin of all people,\u201d \u201cRepresentatively Gentiles as well as Jews were implicated in the crucifixion.\u201d As to the nature of the blindness, it is both \u201cincomplete and temporary.\u201d Because it is incomplete, \u201cJews have come to Christ down through the Christian centuries, even though the vast majority have rejected Him.\u201d It is temporary, for \u201cthis blindness \u2026 will last only till the fulness of the Gentiles is come in.\u201d This is \u201cthe present age of the church during which God is taking out from among the Gentiles a people for His name.\u201d When the fulness comes, that is, when \u201cthe last soul of those chosen from among the Gentiles answers the call of the gospel, the fulness will be complete.\u201d At that point, \u201cGod will turn again to Israel and place the nation in the very center of His operations.\u201d Until then, \u201cIsrael is dispersed from the land and suffers persecution.\u201d
\nFeinberg\u2019s view of 11:25 is that this verse is evidence that God has not cast away His people for the fact is that \u201cthe blindness of the Jews is only partial and temporary,\u201d and the hope of Israel will yet find fulfillment. That hope is the national salvation and restoration of Israel. Israel is destined to be \u201cgrafted into her own olive tree,\u201d and the Olive Tree is the \u201crestoration to blessing.\u201d Among the blessings are: the second coming, salvation, regathering, the Holy Spirit, the New Covenant, a renovated earth, the land, the temple, and the Messianic Kingdom. The blindness of Romans 11:25 is a blindness of the heart, but this is the \u201coutcome of repeated disobedience\u201d which in turn \u201crenders men unapproachable with the truth.\u201d It is blindness that is a hardening \u201cstrictly a matter of the heart, which is the center of all spiritual life.\u201d
\nFeinberg\u2019s emphasis is that the blindness upon Israel is a partial blindness. Paul had declared earlier in Romans nine that \u201call Israel never were the spiritual seed of Abraham.\u201d In Romans 11, Paul declared that \u201conly some of the branches were broken off.\u201d The meaning of the \u201cblindness in part\u201d is not \u201cthat all Israel has been partially blinded \u2026 nor does it imply that the blindness is partial as to time.\u201d What it does mean is that \u201cthere will be some in Israel who will not be blinded,\u201d and these make up the Remnant of Israel. For this very reason, those \u201cwho try to discourage Jewish evangelization\u201d are wrong and are guilty of ignorance and \u201cfalse notions.\u201d Feinberg then deals with the fact that there are three distinct remnants. First, \u201cthere was a remnant before Christ\u2019s advent,\u201d like the seven thousand of Elijah\u2019s day, for \u201cGod had always had a number in Israel who were loyal to Him.\u201d The second is the \u201cremnant of Israel in the Church Age.\u201d This is the individual election within the national election. Feinberg then makes a distinction between the remnant of the Old Testament and the remnant in the New. The present remnant \u201cbelongs no longer to the commonwealth of Israel, but is one with all believers in Christ Jesus.\u201d This is a conclusion that Feinberg reaches because all believers today are part of the Church; however, one need not cancel out the other, and it is possible to be both a member of the Church and a member of the commonwealth of Israel at the same time. Paul never states that Jewish believers who are part of the one new man are no longer part of the commonwealth of Israel. This is yet another example of the weakness of Dispensationalism in Israel Present. The third remnant is the future one. The purpose of Israel\u2019s blindness, while it is a judgment, \u201chas meant more than that,\u201d for the \u201ccasting away has meant the reconciling of the world.\u201d
\nFeinberg concludes with a discussion of the end of Israel\u2019s blindness. Feinberg points out that the word until denotes \u201cthe time up to which the blindness will continue.\u201d It is to continue until the fulness of the Gentiles. This phrase is interpreted as referring to \u201call the elect of this Church age,\u201d and this elect group includes believing Gentiles which are the ones God has now gathered for \u201ca people for his name,\u201d and believing Jews who constitute the present remnant. This, of course, is the Church. Feinberg, like the majority of Dispensationalists, distinguishes between the fulness of the Gentiles and the times of the Gentiles. The former is an \u201cecclesiastical designation\u201d which began with Pentecost in Acts two and will end at the Rapture. The latter is a \u201cpolitical designation\u201d which began with Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian Captivity and will end with the Antichrist and the second coming.
\nThe previous key verse now leads to the next one, Romans 11:26, which states, and so all Israel shall he saved \u2026 The dispensational view follows the literal perspective and so Walvoord interprets it as a reference to Israel\u2019s national salvation. \u201cSubsequent to the lifting of Israel\u2019s blindness \u2026 Israel will be restored.\u201d Dispensationalism insists that the \u201cterm Israel as it is used here is defined by the context as a genuine reference to the Jewish people \u2026 in contrast to Gentiles throughout the preceding context.\u201d The \u201cword Israel means the Jewish people, not the church as such.\u201d The expression all Israel is to be understood \u201cas a reference to the people as a whole.\u201d This verse is taken as a clear statement of Israel\u2019s national salvation and restoration in which \u201cIsrael will also be delivered in that day from her persecutors, regathered from all over the earth and brought back to her ancient land, and there blessed spiritually and materially.\u201d Romans 11 does not go into all these details because the purpose of the passage is \u201cto speak to the point of whether Israel is \u2018cast away.\u2019 \u201d The answer is that \u201cIsrael has a future, a glorious one, which will be fulfilled subsequent to the return of her Deliverer.\u201d
\nHoyt states that following the fulness of the Gentiles will come the national salvation of Israel when all Israel shall he saved. This is in conjunction with the second coming, though Hoyt is not clear whether this comes before or after the second coming. The result will be a national cleansing of Israel from all their sins.
\nFeinberg states that Israel\u2019s future technically begins with the close of the Church Age, with \u201cthe completion of the Body of Christ from Jews and Gentiles.\u201d At this time, \u201cthe blindness will be taken away from Israel,\u201d and then the prophetic time clock will enter the Great Tribulation, a period of time \u201cwhich intervenes between \u2018the fulness of the Gentiles\u2019 and the time when \u2018all Israel shall be saved.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n
4. The Messianic Kingdom and Israel\u2019s Regathering and Final Restoration<\/p>\n
The Messianic Kingdom and the final restoration of Israel is something both Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Amillennialists deny. Covenant Premillennialists affirm it, but play down the Jewish character of it. Dispensationalists emphasize it. Chafer states that one result of Israel\u2019s national salvation will be the \u201ccomplete regathering of Israel to her own land, which is accomplished at the time of her salvation and in connection with her Messiah\u2019s return.\u201d This regathering will surpass the miracle of the Exodus and will be accomplished with the aid of angels. Chafer insists that these prophecies concerning Israel\u2019s salvation and restoration have never been fulfilled in history, but will be in the future. They will be fulfilled to Israel and not to the Church, for \u201cmany of these promises\u201d cannot \u201cbe applied to the Church\u201d as Covenant Theology often insists. When they do, they are forced to use \u201cdestructive principles of interpretation.\u201d The promises made to Israel will be fulfilled to Israel and not the Church. These \u201cblessings for Israel [are] the theme of all the prophets, and such, indeed, is the salvation which awaits that people.\u201d Chafer speaks for all Dispensationalists when he interprets the Old Testament prophecies literally. Unlike Covenant Premillennialism, Dispensationalism has no problem using Old Testament prophecies as evidence for a final restoration of Israel and is not limited to Revelation 20 to prove the fact of a Millennium. Chafer also speaks for all Dispensationalists when he states that a \u201cmajor objective in the death of Christ is, therefore, the national salvation of Israel.\u201d
\nChafer, under the heading, \u201cMillennial and Eternal Blessings Upon Gentiles,\u201d distinguishes between Jewish and Gentile blessings. That the Old Testament predicted a period of Gentile salvation and that spiritual blessings would be extended to them is not debatable. On this point, Dispensationalism agrees with Covenant Postmillennialism and Covenant Amillennialism. It agrees with Covenant Premillennialism that the Gentiles were to be recipients of millennial earthly blessings; but Dispensationalism insists that \u201cthese heavenly blessings for the Church should not be confused with the millennial earthly blessings which are assured to Israel, and to the Gentiles who share the kingdom with Israel.\u201d In other words, the promises made to Israel will be kept to Israel. Whatever the Church may enjoy by way of blessings today or the Gentiles tomorrow will not be blessings and promises transferred from Israel to them, but those originally intended for them. Yes, there will be Gentile nations in the Millennium, but positionally they will be there \u201cto abide in the reflected glory of Israel.\u201d Not only will the Gentiles not replace Israel in the kingdom, but the Gentiles will be subservient to Israel in the kingdom.
\nIn a chapter entitled, \u201cThe Future Kingdom Economy,\u201d Chafer speaks of law in the Messianic Kingdom. Chafer\u2019s belief is that in the Messianic Kingdom the rule of life will be largely the Law of Moses. This is derived from carrying his contrast between law and grace beyond that warranted by the Scriptures. Because the teachings of the kingdom \u201care purely legal in essence,\u201d Chafer felt that the kingdom is a return to law in place of grace. Kingdom Law will incorporate \u201cmuch of the Mosaic system,\u201d but at the same time the \u201clegal requirements of the kingdom teachings are greatly advanced, both in severity and detail, beyond the requirement of the Law of Moses.\u201d However, \u201cthis intensification of the legal requirements\u201d of the Law of Moses does not mean that \u201cthe teachings of the Mosaic Law\u201d are moved closer to \u201cthe teachings of grace.\u201d Actually, the reverse is true and they are moved \u201cstill further in the opposite direction\u201d because \u201cthe teachings of the kingdom increase the burden of works of merit over those that were required by the Law of Moses.\u201d However, there is another difference in the kingdom beyond the \u201cintensification\u201d of the Law of Moses. Because of the New Covenant being active in the Messianic Kingdom, the law will be written \u201cinto their minds\u201d and \u201con their hearts,\u201d which will provide the kingdom saint with divine enablement to keep the law which was not provided \u201cunder the reign of the Law of Moses.\u201d However, as good as that may be, it \u201cis not to be compared with the power of the indwelling Spirit which is the present divine enablement provided for the believer under grace.\u201d This statement implies that the period of the kingdom will be in some measure inferior to the Dispensation of Grace. This is an area with which many other Dispensationalists would disagree with Chafer. Many Dispensationalists would say that Kingdom Law is not a reinstitution of the Law of Moses, nor is it an intensification of the demands of the Law of Moses. On the contrary, the death of Christ has forever terminated the law so that it can never be reinstituted. In the Millennium, there will be a new body of law that can be called the Kingdom Law. Like the present Law of Christ, it will have both similarities and dissimilarities with the law of Moses. And, like the Law of Moses, it will be a product of God\u2019s grace.
\nLater, Chafer deals with the regathering of Israel. Chafer\u2019s point here is that at the second coming, there will be a national restoration of Israel which includes the regathering of Israel, the final possession of the land and all the covenant blessings previously promised to Israel. Furthermore, all this as well as the second coming will be preceded by Israel\u2019s national repentance. It is important to note that the national salvation of Israel precedes the second coming and is not subsequent to it. The dating of the regathering of Israel is after the second coming. Just as Israel was dispersed because of disobedience, they will some day be regathered because they will be obedient. At that time, according to Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, the rule of life will not be the Law of Moses, but the New Covenant. The New Covenant will supersede the Mosaic Covenant as a rule of life in their kingdom. However, Chafer feels that the Palestinian Covenant emphasizes that it will be the very laws which Moses gave them that they will keep. Chafer\u2019s solution is that the new will incorporate the righteous requirements set forth in the Mosaic system and so, in that way, Israel will still be judged on the basis of the Law of Moses in the Messianic Kingdom.
\nIn a chapter entitled, \u201cThe Millennium,\u201d while discussing \u201cThe Government of the Millennium,\u201d Ryrie points out what the center of the government will be:<\/p>\n
\u2026 the city of Jerusalem will be the center of government (2:3). That city will be exalted (Zech. 14:10); it will be a place of great glory (Isa. 24:23); it will be the site of the temple (33:20), and the joy of the whole earth (Ps. 48:2). Jerusalem, scene of so much war and turmoil both in the past and present, and victim of future judgments during the Tribulation, will never again need to fear for her safety (Isa. 26:1\u20134).<\/p>\n
Concerning \u201cThe Rulers in the Government,\u201d Ryrie states:<\/p>\n
David will apparently be a regent in the millennial kingdom. A number of prophecies speak of David\u2019s important place in the kingdom (Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 37:24\u201325). Apparently David, who with other Old Testament believers will be resurrected at the second coming of Christ, will act as a prince under the authority of Christ, the King.<\/p>\n
Authority over the twelve tribes of Israel will be vested in the hands of the 12 Apostles (Matt. 19:28).<\/p>\n
According to Walvoord, Dispensationalism believes in a final restoration of Israel and looks upon the Zionist movement in a favorable light. Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Amillennialists cited earlier had theological problems with Zionism because it was a human endeavor. However, as Walvoord points out, the two previous returns also involved \u201chuman contingencies,\u201d yet were so moved by God. There is no reason to deny a third regathering of Israel \u201cto possess the land of promise\u201d and the present State of Israel is viewed as a major step toward that goal. The final regathering \u201clike the previous returns is certain as to its ultimate fulfillment.\u201d After citing a number of references from both the major and minor prophets, Walvoord concludes that the \u201cunited testimony of the prophets is \u2026 that Israel will yet be regathered from the nations of the world and reassembled in their ancient land.\u201d Walvoord believes that the present State of Israel is the beginning of this final restoration and believes \u201cthe regathering will continue until consummated after the second advent of Christ.\u201d This again expresses a positive attitude toward Zionism and the modern state. The very fact that the prophetic promises of regathering are linked \u201cto the original promise of the land as an everlasting possession of Israel,\u201d and the added fact \u201cthat no possession of the land in history has approached a complete fulfillment of Scriptural promises,\u201d shows \u201cthat Israel has a future and in that future will actually possess all the land promised Abraham\u2019s seed as long as this present earth continues.\u201d
\nPentecost shows the relationship of the Millennium to Israel\u2019s covenants:<\/p>\n
Much has been said previously to show that this age will see the complete fulfillment of all the covenants that God made with Israel.\u2026 the kingdom on earth is viewed as the complete fulfillment of those covenants, and that the millennial age is instituted out of necessity in order to fulfill the covenants.<\/p>\n
A. The Abrahamic covenant. The promises in the Abrahamic covenant concerning the land and the seed are fulfilled in the millennial age.\u2026 Israel\u2019s perpetuity, their possession of the land, and their inheritance of blessings are directly related to the fulfillment of this covenant.
\nB. The Davidic covenant. The promises in the Davidic covenant concerning the king, the throne, and the royal house are fulfilled by Messiah in the millennial age.\u2026 The fact that Israel has a kingdom, over which David\u2019s Son reigns as King, is based on this Davidic covenant.
\nC. The Palestinic covenant. The promises in the Palestinic covenant concerning the possession of the land are fulfilled by Israel in the millennial age.\u2026 These references to the possession of the land promise fulfillment of the Palestinic covenant.
\nD. The new covenant. The promises of the new covenant of a new heart, the forgiveness of sin, the filling of the Spirit are fulfilled in the converted nation in the millennial age.\u2026 All the spiritual blessings Israel receives are fulfillment of this covenant.<\/p>\n
It will thus be observed that the millennial age finds the complete fulfillment of all that God promised to the nation Israel.<\/p>\n
Simply put, since the above-mentioned covenants are all eternal and unconditional, and since they contain promises not fulfilled heretofore, they require a future fulfillment, and in the program of God they could only be fulfilled in the Millennium.
\nUnder the subheading, \u201cIsrael in the Millennium,\u201d Pentecost brings out three important things about Israel in the Messianic Kingdom. First, there will be a national restoration of Israel to the land, because \u201cthe covenants could not be fulfilled apart from this regathering.\u201d This same regathering \u201cis associated with the second advent.\u201d Second, there will be a national regeneration of Israel. The \u201cnation Israel is to experience a conversion, which will prepare them to meet the Messiah and to be in His millennial kingdom.\u201d This event is also associated with the second coming. Because \u201cno unsaved person is to enter the millennium, Israel anticipated a conversion that would prepare them for this promised kingdom.\u201d So, then, the second coming \u201cwill witness this conversion of the nation, that is, all true Israel, so the covenants given to them may find fulfillment during the age of the Messiah\u2019s reign.\u201d What Pentecost fails to see is that, because such a national regeneration will take place, there is no need or even room for a special judgment of Israel after the second coming to separate the saved from the unsaved. Third, Israel will be Messiah\u2019s subjects in the Millennium. Because \u201cIsrael will become the subjects of the King\u2019s reign,\u201d seven things will be true of Israel: first, there will be both a national salvation and restoration; second, \u201cIsrael will be reunited as a nation\u201d; third, Israel will again become the Wife of Jehovah by virtue of a remarriage; fourth, Israel \u201cwill be exalted above the Gentiles\u201d; fifth, \u201cIsrael will be made righteous\u201d; sixth, Israel \u201cwill become God\u2019s witnesses during the millennium\u201d; and, seventh, \u201cIsrael will be beautified to bring glory to Jehovah.\u201d
\nMcClain also discusses the regathering of Israel. Because the \u201cregathering of historic Israel is one of the major themes\u201d of Old Testament prophecy from Moses to Malachi, McClain finds it inconceivable that \u201cthe sole notice given to it in many theological works is a denial that it will ever be fulfilled,\u201d and for him this \u201cattitude is hard to understand.\u201d Certainly, if the prophecies of the dispersion have been fulfilled, \u201cthere should be no question about the regathering,\u201d since both types of prophecies were addressed to the same people, Israel. Having no difficulty in accepting the literal Interpretation, McClain points out four things about this regathering. First, it will be accomplished by \u201cboth a divine and a human\u201d means since God will use both supernatural and natural means. Second, it \u201cwill be international in its scope,\u201d because they will be regathered from all countries and from all points of the compass. Third, the regathering \u201cwill be accompanied with a great spiritual revival\u201d for the repentance that began in Jerusalem and spread to Jews throughout the land will also spread to the Jews still in the Dispersion. Fourth, the restoration to the land this time \u201cwill be permanent.\u201d After this restoration, there will be no more scatterings. McClain concludes that \u201call these things add up to one unanswerable argument that the Old Testament prophecies of Israel\u2019s regathering have never been fulfilled.\u201d
\nMcClain affirms that Israel\u2019s final restoration \u201cwill be a settlement of the Jewish problem.\u201d McClain insists that it is \u201cutterly unrealistic to deny that there is such a problem, and has been ever since the \u2026 world-wide dispersion of the chosen people.\u201d Whereas Boettner faulted the Jews for this problem, McClain does not, for the issue \u201cis not that the Jew is worse or better than other men.\u201d The problem lies in the \u201cfrequent anti-Semitic outbursts, from Haman to Hitler,\u201d which are \u201cthe attempts of wicked men to solve this problem by irrational and cruel means.\u201d The reason the problem exists is that Israel, \u201cin the good purpose of God, is an appointed means for the future well-being of the world.\u201d However, this can only be accomplished when \u201cIsrael is where he ought to be, both religiously and politically\u201d: until then \u201cthere can be no thorough and permanent solution of the international problems.\u201d It is for this very reason that the prophets gave such a \u201cprominent place to the political welfare of Israel.\u201d Until Israel is finally restored, the nation \u201ccannot fully serve the divine purpose.\u201d McClain concludes that \u201cwhen the political unification and supremacy of Israel have been firmly established by divine power, all nations will gladly recognize the benefits of such an arrangement.\u201d In this way, the so-called \u201cJewish problem\u201d will be solved forever.<\/p>\n
D. Summary and Conclusions of the Israelology of Dispensationalism<\/p>\n
The Israelology of Dispensationalism is based on a literal interpretation of Scripture and this, in turn, leads to snaking a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church. This allows for the greatest and most complete development of a systematic Israelology, far more so than any of the three schools of Covenant Theology. However, Dispensationalism has failed to actually do this, and dispensational writers simply integrate their Israelology into their Ecclesiology and their Eschatology. However, the subject of Israel and the key role it plays in Scripture is worthy of its own distinct place in Systematic Theology.<\/p>\n
1. SUMMARY<\/p>\n
a. Israel Past<\/p>\n
Israel as a nation was the object of a national election which put them in a place of privilege and blessing. This did not guarantee the salvation of every Jew, since salvation is a result of individual election. Those individually elected become believers and make up the Remnant of Israel. While the national election did not guarantee salvation, it did guarantee Israel\u2019s survival as a people.
\nBecause of this national election, God entered into five covenants with Israel, four of which were unconditional and eternal, while one was conditional and temporary. The first covenant was the Abrahamic Covenant, which contained three key elements: a seed or a nation, a land, and blessings. The nation is the Jewish nation; the land is Canaan, or Palestine, or the Land of Israel; and the blessings were spiritual blessings which were also destined to extend to the Gentiles. The second covenant was the Mosaic Covenant, the only one which was conditional and temporary. It contained the Law of Moses, which was a rule of life for Israel, for the Old Testament saint, but it never was a way or means of salvation. It promised blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The third covenant is the Palestinian Covenant which amplified the land aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, promising a world-wide scattering and dispersion, followed by a world-wide regathering into the land. The fourth covenant is the Davidic Covenant, which amplified the seed aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant. When used as a collective singular, the seed refers to the Jewish nation. When it is used as an absolute singular, it refers to the Messiah. This covenant assures the continuance of the House of David, for the Messiah will come from him. Furthermore, it promised three eternal things: a house, a kingdom, and a throne. The eternity of the house, kingdom, and throne is guaranteed because the seed of David culminates in a descendant Who is Himself eternal. The fifth covenant is the New Covenant, which amplifies the blessing aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, especially spiritual blessings. This covenant promised a national salvation of Israel. The covenant contained both physical and spiritual promises.
\nAs for the Kingdom of God, Dispensationalists see two major facets of God\u2019s kingdom program. The first facet is the Universal Kingdom or the Eternal Kingdom, which is God\u2019s rule over His creation by means of His sovereignty and providence. As the names imply, it is both universal (over all creation) and eternal (God\u2019s rule has no beginning or end). The second facet is known as the Theocratic Kingdom or Mediatorial Kingdom, which is God\u2019s rule through human mediators. While a form of theocracy existed since Adam, it had a unique display with God\u2019s rule over Israel. The Theocratic Kingdom over Israel began with Moses and continued in its purely mediatorial form from Moses to Joshua, through the Judges, until Samuel. It then took a monarchial form from Saul to Zedekiah. The Theocratic Kingdom ended with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. At that time, the Theocratic Kingdom in history ended and the Times of the Gentiles began. As the quality of the Theocratic Kingdom declined, the prophets spoke of a future facet of the kingdom program, the Messianic Kingdom, when God will exercise His rule through the Messiah.<\/p>\n
b. Israel Present<\/p>\n
When Jesus came, He offered to Israel the very kingdom which the prophets spoke of, the Messianic Kingdom, the earthly kingdom. In fulfillment of prophecy and the plan of God, Israel rejected the Messiah. As a result, the offer of the millennial form of the kingdom was rescinded, destined to be reoffered to a future Jewish generation, while the present generation was placed under a divine judgment that came in A.D. 70. In place of setting up the Messianic Kingdom following His death and resurrection, He instead returned to the Father. In place of the Messianic Kingdom, a different facet of God\u2019s kingdom program was inaugurated, which is the Mystery Kingdom. This is the way God\u2019s rule is manifested between the Jewish rejection of the Messiah and the Jewish acceptance of the Messiah. The Mystery Kingdom is not the Church, though the Church is included in that kingdom. The Mystery Kingdom is basically defined as \u201cChristendom.\u201d
\nChrist also announced the formation of a new entity, distinct from Israel, through which the message of salvation is to go forth: the Church. The Church began in Acts two when the Holy Spirit began the work of Spirit baptism, and it is composed of all believers, Jews and Gentiles, from Acts two until the Rapture of the Church. The Church is not the new Israel or the spiritual Israel, but the one new man. She has not taken over Israel\u2019s covenants, blessings or promises, nor are God\u2019s promises to Israel being fulfilled in or through the Church. However, the Church is a partaker of Jewish spiritual blessings. The Jewish covenants contained both physical and spiritual promises. The physical promises were limited to the Jews, but the spiritual promises were to extend to the Gentiles. When the Church became a partaker, this was fulfilled and is still being fulfilled, but this does not make the Church Israel or the Kingdom of God.
\nAs for Romans 9\u201311, the two Israels are not physical Israel and the Church, but physical Israel and spiritual Israel. Both Israels are composed of Jews only. Physical Israel includes all Jews, but spiritual Israel is only those Jews who believe. This is the same as the Israel of God of Galatians 6:16 and the Remnant of Israel. While the majority of the Jews have not believed, this does not mean that God has cast away His people. The truth is, the majority have always disbelieved while a minority, the remnant, believed. Today, also, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Some believe that this remnant ceases to be part of the Commonwealth of Israel and becomes a member of the Church only, while others see Jewish believers to be in both groups. As for the Olive Tree, this is not the Church or Israel, but it is the place of blessing, rooted in the patriarchs and the Jewish covenants. The natural branches are Jews, and the wild olive branches are the Gentiles. Both groups have believers in the place of blessing. Today, Israel suffers under a judicial blindness, but this blindness is partial so that there is still a remnant. It is temporary until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Today, God is taking out from among the Gentiles a people for His name.<\/p>\n
c. Israel Future<\/p>\n
The fullness of the Gentiles comes when the set number of Gentiles God has ordained for the Church is complete, and then she is raptured. Because of the distinction that is maintained between Israel and the Church, Dispensationalists are pretribulationists.
\nIsrael will undergo the seven years of Tribulation and is to be identified with the Woman of Revelation 12. Israel will suffer persecution during this period, and many will die; but one-third of the nation will survive. The 144,000 are a special class within Israel who will be used to proclaim the gospel world-wide, resulting in the salvation of myriads of Gentiles.
\nAt some point in relationship to the second coming, Israel will experience a national salvation; for the blindness will be removed, and all Israel will be saved. Israel will also experience a national regathering and restoration back into the land and will have a prominent place above the Gentile nations in the Messianic Kingdom. Some, but not all, believe that Israel will undergo a special judgment in conjunction with the second coming to determine who will or who will not enter this kingdom. Others feel the Tribulation itself is the judgment upon Israel and so a separate judgment is not necessary.
\nIn the Messianic Kingdom, which is to last a literal one thousand years, Israel will enjoy, receive, and fulfill all the promises and blessings of the four unconditional covenants. The saved nation will have her own distinct identity and will not be amalgamated into the Church. As for the Church, she will have a separate role in the kingdom as co-reigners with Christ.<\/p>\n
2. CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n
Not bound to a covenant of grace, but only bound to the text of Scripture, Dispensationalism allows the Church to be the Church, but Israel is allowed to be Israel. Again, Dispensationalism, as a theological system, is the only one that has a basis for a full-fledged Israelology. Having failed to actually produce one has led to some confusion and inconsistency. The following are some specifics.<\/p>\n
a. Israel Past<\/p>\n
A major failing of Dispensationalism is a clear delineation between the physical and the spiritual blessings and promises of the Jewish covenants. This, in turn, has led to a failure to understand the Gentile role and participation in the spiritual blessings of the covenants. This is the root behind the view of some Dispensationalists that there are two new covenants instead of one. However, on the whole, this is Dispensationalism\u2019s second best developed area.<\/p>\n
b. Israel Present<\/p>\n
This is Dispensationalism\u2019s weakest area. This is the area where Dispensationalism\u2019s insistence on a distinction between Israel and the Church has not been consistently applied. Because they assume that God\u2019s program for Israel and God\u2019s program for the Church can never operate at the same time, some see no prophetic significance to Israel today, though the majority do. Even Dispensationalists sometimes state that Jews who believe cease to be Jews when they become part of the Church, though such a statement is inconsistent with the basic tenets of Dispensationalism. Another inconsistency includes recognition that the Sabbath no longer applies, but then insistence on a Sunday observance as mandatory.
\nThough very clear on the existence of a Jewish remnant today, as always, Dispensationalism shows a lack of consensus as to this remnant\u2019s relationship to the body or Commonwealth of Israel. There is a clear failure to recognize that the remnant is always part of Israel and is not separated from it, and that it is possible to be part of the remnant and part of the Church at the same time. This, in turn, leads to confusion in other areas. For example, Dispensationalists insist that the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal and unconditional covenant; and the token of the covenant is circumcision. This clearly implies that circumcision, while not mandatory for Gentiles, is mandatory for Jews. Yet even Dispensationalists cry \u201cgalatianism\u201d when they hear of Jewish believers circumcising their sons ritually on the eighth day. Another example of confusion and inconsistency concerns the issue of Jewish Messianic congregations: Jewish-oriented churches that formulate a style of worship which is distinctively Jewish rather than Gentile. Yet, even some Dispensationalists claim that while all other nationalities can have ethnic churches, Jewish believers are forbidden to have Jewish ethnic churches. There is a lack of concern as to whether Jewish believers are permitted to be Jewish and practice their Jewishness.
\nAgain, this area is Dispensationalism\u2019s greatest weakness and is the least developed area. On Jewish questions for the present, many Dispensationalists sound like Covenant Theologians!<\/p>\n
c. Israel Future<\/p>\n
This is Dispensationalism\u2019s most developed area of Israelology and what it is most noted for. As a result, to many, the word \u201cDispensationalism\u201d conjures up the concept of prophecy rather than a system of theology. Here, too, there are weaknesses which Israelology could resolve, two in particular.
\nFirst, Dispensationalism is pretribulational, but has not always been clear as to when before the Tribulation the Rapture will occur. As a result, many have taught only on assumption that the Rapture will begin the Tribulation. However, this is not the case, and the Tribulation is a part of God\u2019s program for Israel and not the Church. The beginning of the Tribulation is somehow related to Israel, but most Dispensationalists have not been clear as to how it is related.
\nA second area of confusion is the relationship of Israel\u2019s national salvation to the second coming. There is a lack of understanding as to exactly what the basis or precondition to the second coming is. This, in turn, leads to a lack of concern as to whether that national salvation takes place before or after the second coming. This is also the reason there are questions raised about a special judgment of Israel to determine who is, and who is not, saved; yet Dispensationalism teaches that all Israel will be saved.
\nOnly a separately developed Israelology that is not amalgamated into Ecclesiology and Eschatology can resolve these problems and answer these questions.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER X<\/p>\n
A DISPENSATIONAL ISRAELOLOGY<\/p>\n
Chapters II through VII surveyed the Israelology of the three schools of Covenant Theology. All three theologies are based on the covenant of grace which, in turn, forces them to use an allegorical hermeneutic and, in turn, identify the Church as Israel. This limits the development of a full-scale Israelology. Not all three schools are equally guilty for they differ in the degree that they apply the allegorical hermeneutic and at what point Israel becomes the Church. Covenant Amillennialism has the least development of the three while Covenant Premillennialism has the most. Covenant Postmillennialism falls in between. However, all have shown themselves to be inadequate to provide a distinctive Israelology. Therefore, the search for a full-blown Israelology led to Dispensationalism.
\nBecause only Dispensationalism makes a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, and insists on a consistent use of literal or plain hermeneutics, only Dispensationalism allows for a fully developed Israelology as a separate division of Systematic Theology. However, as chapters I, VIII, and IX have shown, it has failed to do so. The purpose of this chapter is to present a fully developed Israelology: past, present, and future. In addition to these three major categories, additional categories will be added for the sake of completeness. By and large, the material found under Israel Past and Future has always been a part of Dispensationalism, but has not always been systematized or, if so, not necessarily in this order. The material under Israel Present, for the most part, is the author\u2019s development. The final section on other relevant topics is virtually exclusively the author\u2019s own development.
\nThe main purpose of this chapter is to systematize Israelology. The secondary purpose is to discuss issues relevant to Israelology which have gone undeveloped in Dispensationalism for the above two reasons. While every relevant topic will be at least mentioned, not every topic will receive equal attention since many of these topics have been developed and discussed in Dispensationalism and can be found in chapter IX. Those areas which Dispensationalism has developed will be discussed in summary fashion, such as the covenants and the Kingdom of God program. For details, the reader may refer to the previous chapter of this work. What will be detailed here are the undeveloped areas, especially in Israel Present.<\/p>\n
A. Israel Past<\/p>\n
1. The Election of Israel<\/p>\n
In dealing with the concept of election, a distinction must be made between individual election and national election. The former is soteriological and results in the salvation of that individual. This type of election extends to both Jewish and Gentile individuals and any person who has ever believed, either Jew? or Gentile, was the object of God\u2019s individual election. However, the concern of Israelology is national election because only Israel is called an elect nation. National election does not guarantee the salvation of every individual within the nation since only individual election can do that. Nor does national election guarantee the physical salvation of every member of the nation. What national election does guarantee is that God\u2019s purpose(s) for choosing the nation will be accomplished and that the elect nation will always survive as a distinct entity. It guarantees the physical salvation of the nation and, in the case of Israel, even a national salvation. It is the national election of Israel that is the basis of Israel\u2019s status as the Chosen People.<\/p>\n
a. The Fact of Israel\u2019s Election<\/p>\n
The Book of Deuteronomy, more than the other four books of Moses, emphasizes this factor. The earliest reference to Israel\u2019s election is Deuteronomy 4:37:<\/p>\n
And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with his presence, with his great power; out of Egypt;<\/p>\n
In this verse, Moses makes three points. First, the basis of God\u2019s election was His love for the Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom He made a covenant. Second, on that basis, God chose their seed after them. On the basis of that covenant relationship, God chose Israel to be His elect nation. Third, on the basis of that election He delivered Israel out of Egypt.
\nLater, in Deuteronomy 7:6\u20138:<\/p>\n
For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. Jehovah did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all peoples: but because Jehovah loveth you, and because he would keep the oath which he sware unto your fathers, hath Jehovah brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.<\/p>\n
In verse six, Israel\u2019s election is clearly stated. Israel is declared to be a holy people, not because of any innate righteousness, as Deuteronomy 9:4\u20136 makes clear, but because Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee. The concept of \u201choliness,\u201d like \u201csanctification,\u201d means \u201ca setting apart.\u201d By God\u2019s choosing of Israel, she was set apart from all other nations to be a holy people. Furthermore, Israel was chosen to be God\u2019s own possession and this above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. This statement clearly separates the nation and people of Israel from all other nations and so Israel alone is the elect nation. The concept of Israel as a nation which is God\u2019s special possession is reaffirmed twice. The first time is in Deuteronomy 14:2:<\/p>\n
For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God, and Jehovah hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.<\/p>\n
Israel\u2019s status as a holy people is based on the fact that God hath chosen thee to he a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are on the face of the earth. Israel is declared a people chosen by God, i.e. the Chosen People. The second time is in Deuteronomy 26:18:<\/p>\n
\u2026 and Jehovah hath avouched thee this day to be a people for his own possession, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments:<\/p>\n
It is because Israel is a people for his own possession that she should keep the commandments of God. The same point was made clear in Exodus 19:6:<\/p>\n
\u2026 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.<\/p>\n
In verses 7\u20138, Moses spelled out the basis for Israel\u2019s election, both negatively and positively. Negatively (v. 7), it was not because of Israel\u2019s size for the exact opposite was really true. Positively (v. 8), Israel was chosen for two reasons: first, because God loved Israel in spite of her small size; and, second, because God has a covenant relationship with the fathers, the three patriarchs, and, therefore, God must keep His oath made to them. It is for this very reason that God rescued Israel at the Exodus. Israel\u2019s election is closely intertwined with the covenants of Israel to be discussed in the next section.
\nStill later in Deuteronomy 10:15\u201316, Moses states:<\/p>\n
Only Jehovah had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all peoples, as at this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.<\/p>\n
Verse 15 deals with the concept of a national election of Israel. The basis is His love for the fathers and, because of that relationship, God chose their seed after them. The seed is the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, i.e., the Jewish people. Again, they were chosen above all peoples. This makes Israel uniquely an elect nation, not true of any other nation in this world. However, national election does not guarantee the salvation of every individual member of that nation. Individual salvation is based on individual election on God\u2019s part and faith on man\u2019s part. In verse 16, individual members of the elect nation are encouraged to circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart. While circumcision of the flesh is a sign of one\u2019s membership in the elect nation, circumcision of the heart is a sign of individual salvation.<\/p>\n
b. The Reasons and\/or Purposes of Israel\u2019s Election<\/p>\n
While Israel was chosen on the basis of God\u2019s love, there was purpose and reason to Israel\u2019s election. A key purpose is stated at the outset of God\u2019s revelation at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:6:<\/p>\n
\u2026 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.<\/p>\n
Israel\u2019s status as a holy nation was based on her election. A purpose of the election was for Israel to be a kingdom of priests. While Israel had a priestly tribe, the Tribe of Levi, the nation as a whole was also to be a priesthood. The historical function of a priest was to represent man to God. The Tribe of Levi represented Israel before God; and Israel was to represent the Gentile nations before God. This was perhaps the primary purpose of Israel\u2019s national election and all other reasons are subservient to this one.
\nA second reason was to be the recipient of God\u2019s revelation and to record it. For this reason, Israel received the Law of Moses (Deut. 4:5\u20138; 6:6\u20139; Rom. 3:1\u20132).
\nA third reason was to propagate the doctrine of the One God in Isaiah 43:10\u201312:<\/p>\n
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no saviour. I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and I am God.<\/p>\n
In this passage, Israel was chosen to proclaim to the Gentile nations two things: first, that Jehovah, the God of Israel, is the only God; and, second, He is the only Savior and all who seek salvation must find it in Him.
\nA fourth reason was to produce the Messiah (Rom. 9:5; Heb. 2:16\u201317; 7:13\u201314).<\/p>\n
2. The Unconditional Covenants<\/p>\n
Closely connected and intertwined with Israel\u2019s election are the four unconditional covenants God made with the nation. An unconditional covenant can be defined as a sovereign act of God whereby God unconditionally obligates Himself to bring to pass definite promises, blessings, and conditions for the covenanted people. It is a unilateral covenant. This type of covenant is characterized by the formula I will which declares God\u2019s determination to do exactly as He promised. The blessings are secured by the grace of God.
\nCovenant Theologians have misinterpreted what Dispensationalists mean by \u201cunconditional.\u201d Their claim is that Dispensationalism teaches that these covenants contain no conditions whatsoever. By simply citing one or more conditions contained in these covenants, they feel they have disproven Dispensationalism. Either these critics have not bothered to read exactly what Dispensationalists have been saying about these covenants (a case of intellectual dishonesty) or have deliberately distorted what Dispensationalism believes to make their own position look better (a case of intellectual perversion). Let it be stated as clearly as it can be that Dispensationalism does believe there are conditions in the unconditional covenants. What they mean by \u201cunconditional\u201d is that God\u2019s fulfillment of His promises are unconditional and He will accomplish all promises stated in the covenants. In other words, the conditions stated in those same covenants are not the basis by which the covenants will be fulfilled. God intends to fulfill the content of the covenants, those promises dependent upon God for fulfillment, regardless of whether Israel fulfills her\u2019s.
\nBefore dealing with the four unconditional covenants individually, five things should be noted concerning their nature. First, they are literal covenants and their contents must be interpreted literally as well. Second, the covenants God made with Israel are eternal and are not conditioned by time. Third, it is necessary to re-emphasize that these are unconditional covenants which were not abrogated because of Israel\u2019s disobedience. Because these covenants are unconditional and totally dependent upon God for fulfillment, they can be expected to have an ultimate fulfillment. The fourth thing to note is that these covenants were made with a specific people: Israel. This is brought out by Paul in Romans 9:4:<\/p>\n
\u2026 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;<\/p>\n
This passage clearly points out that these covenants were made with the covenanted people and are Israel\u2019s possession. This is brought out again in Ephesians 2:11\u201312:<\/p>\n
Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.<\/p>\n
The four unconditional covenants belong to the people of Israel and, as this passage notes, Gentiles were considered strangers from the covenants. Fifth, while a covenant is made at a specific point of time, not all of the provisions go immediately into effect. At the time a covenant is signed or sealed, three things happen: some do go immediately into effect; some go into effect in the near future; and some go into effect only in the distant or prophetic future. Examples of this will be given in the study of the covenants themselves.<\/p>\n
a. The Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
(1) Scripture<\/p>\n
There are six different passages of Scripture which pertain to the Abrahamic Covenant. First is Genesis 12:1\u20133:<\/p>\n
Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father\u2019s house, unto the land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.<\/p>\n
Second, Genesis 12:7:<\/p>\n
And Jehovah appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an alter unto Jehovah, who appeared unto him.<\/p>\n
Third, Genesis 13:14\u201317:<\/p>\n
And Jehovah said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and eastward and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then may thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for unto thee will I give it.<\/p>\n
The fourth and fifth passages dealing with the Abrahamic Covenant are Genesis 15:1\u201321 and Genesis 17:1\u201321; these more lengthy segments of Scripture, not quoted in this study, contain many of the covenant provisions. The emphasis of Genesis 15 is on the signing of the Abrahamic Covenant. Among its provisions are: (1) Abraham would father a nation in particular; (2) he would father many nations in general; and, (3) God signs and seals the Abrahamic covenant and spells out the exact borders of the Promised Land as extending from the River of Egypt in the south to the great river, Euphrates, in the north. The manner in which this covenant is signed and sealed rendered this covenant unconditional. There are similarities and dissimilarities with the ancient Near-Eastern covenant-making customs. The similarities are found in that animals were slaughtered so as to make it a blood covenant and then the animals were cut up and the pieces lined up in two parallel rows. Then the dissimilarities began. Normally, both parties making the covenant would walk together between the pieces of the animals rendering the terms manditory on both parties. If one failed to keep his terms, it would free the other from keeping his. In this way, the covenant was conditional. In this case, however, it was not God and Abraham who walked between the pieces of the animals, but God alone, binding only Himself to the terms of the covenant. This rendered the Covenant unconditional. Its fulfillment is based purely on God\u2019s grace regardless of how often Abraham or his seed may fail.
\nThe emphasis of Genesis 17 is on the token of the covenant: physical circumcision on the eighth day of the boy\u2019s life. Just as the rainbow was the token of the Noahic Covenant, circumcision is the token of the Abrahamic Covenant. This also rendered the covenant a blood covenant.
\nThe sixth passage is Genesis 22:15\u201318:<\/p>\n
And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.<\/p>\n
(2) The Provisions of the Covenant<\/p>\n
In these six passages, the persons involved are God and Abraham. In this covenant Abraham stood not for all humanity (as was the case with Adam in the Edenic and Adamic covenants and Noah in the Noahic Covenant), but for the whole Jewish nation; the representative head of the Jewish people. A list gleaned from these Genesis passages shows a total of fourteen provisions in this covenant:<\/p>\n
(1) A great nation was to come out of Abraham, namely, the nation of Israel (12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 17:1\u20132, 7; 22:17b);
\n(2) He was promised a land specifically, the Land of Canaan (12:1, 7; 13:14\u201315, 17; 15:17\u201321; 17:8);
\n(3) Abraham himself was to be greatly blessed (12:2b; 15:6; 22:15\u201317a);
\n(4) Abraham\u2019s name would be great (12:2c);
\n(5) Abraham will be a blessing to others (12:2d);
\n(6) Those who bless will be blessed (12:3a);
\n(7) Those who curse will be cursed (12:3b);
\n(8) In Abraham all will ultimately be blessed, a promise of Gentile blessing (12:3c; 22:18);
\n(9) Abraham would receive a son through his wife Sarah (15:1\u20134; 17:16\u201321);
\n(10) His descendants would undergo the Egyptian bondage (15:13\u201314);
\n(11) Other nations as well as Israel would come forth from Abraham (17:3\u20134, 6; the Arab states are some of these nations);
\n(12) His name was to be changed from Abram to Abraham (17:5);
\n(13) Sarai\u2019s name was to be changed to Sarah (17:15); and,
\n(14) There was to be a token of the covenant\u2014circumcision (17:9\u201314) and so according to the Abrahamic Covenant, circumcision was a sign of Jewishness.<\/p>\n
These provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant can be categorized in three areas: to Abraham, to the Seed (Israel), and to the Gentiles.
\nConcerning Abraham. The promises made to Abraham individually were: (1) Abraham was to be the father of a great nation (Israel); (2) he was to possess all of the Promised Land; (3) other nations (including the Arab states) were to descend from Abraham; (4) many of his descendants would become kings (both Jewish and non-Jewish kings); (5) Abraham was to receive personal blessings; (6) Abraham was to be a blessing to others; and, (7) his name was to become great\u2014and so it is among Jews, Moslems, and Christians. Some of these were fulfilled in his lifetime, but some were not (such as ownership of the land) and so await a future fulfillment.
\nConcerning the Seed (Israel). When the term seed was used as a collective singular, it was a reference to Israel. Promises made to the nation were: (1) the nation was to become great; (2) it was ultimately to become innumerable; (3) it was to possess all of the Promised Land; and, (4) it was to receive victory over its enemies. The fact that the promises were made to both Abraham and his seed shows that these blessings have not yet received a complete fulfillment, but await the Messianic Kingdom.
\nConcerning the Gentiles. Promises made to the Gentiles included: (1) Blessings for blessing Israel; (2) cursings for cursing Israel; and, (3) the Gentiles also were to receive spiritual blessings, but ultimately these were to come through one specific Seed of Abraham\u2014the Messiah. When the term seed was used as an absolute singular, it was a reference to the Messiah. It should be noted at this point that the Abrahamic Covenant contained both physical and spiritual promises. While the physical promises were limited to Israel, the spiritual promises or blessings were to extend to the Gentiles. The promise of Gentile blessing was stated early in the Abrahamic Covenant (12:3).<\/p>\n
(3) The Three Aspects of the Covenant<\/p>\n
Reducing the Abrahamic Covenant to its very basics, it contains three aspects: the land, the seed, and the blessing. The land aspect is developed in the Palestinian Covenant; the seed aspect is covered in the Davidic Covenant; and the blessing aspect is presented in the New Covenant.<\/p>\n
(4) The Reconfirmations of the Covenant<\/p>\n
Abraham had eight sons by three different women. The question is: through which sons would the Abrahamic Covenant be confirmed? God revealed that it was to be through Sarah\u2019s son, Isaac, only. His appearance to Isaac is recorded in Genesis 26:2\u20135:<\/p>\n
And Jehovah appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.<\/p>\n
The covenant was later reconfirmed to Isaac in Genesis 26:24:<\/p>\n
And Jehovah appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham\u2019s sake.<\/p>\n
In the confirmation of the covenant to Isaac, five specific provisions were stated: (1) Isaac is to be blessed (26:3a, 24a); (2) the land is promised to both Isaac and Isaac\u2019s seed (26:3b, 4b); (3) the seed will be multiplied (26:4a, 24b); (4) Gentiles will someday be blessed through the Seed (26:4c); and, (5) the basis of the confirmation is God\u2019s covenant with Abraham (26:3c, 5, 24c).
\nIsaac had two sons and God chose to confirm the covenant with Jacob only, as seen in Genesis 28:13\u201315:<\/p>\n
And, behold, Jehovah stood above it, and said, I am Jehovah, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee withersoever thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land: for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.<\/p>\n
In the confirmation of the covenant to Jacob, three specific provisions were made: (1) The Land is promised to both Jacob and Jacob\u2019s seed (28:13, 15); (2) the seed will be multiplied (28:14a); and, (3) the Gentiles will someday be blessed through the seed (28:14b).
\nAfter that it was confirmed through all of Jacob\u2019s twelve sons who fathered the twelve Tribes of Israel (Gen. 49). Thus, the Abrahamic Covenant provides the biblical definition of Jewishness: a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.<\/p>\n
(5) The Continuity of the Covenant<\/p>\n
The Abrahamic Covenant became the basis for the Dispensation of Promise. Because the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, it is still very much in effect though it has remained largely unfulfilled. The ultimate fulfillment will come during the Kingdom Age. The unconditional nature of the covenant is affirmed and reaffirmed a number of times. For example, although it is clear that Israel in Egypt and Israel in the wilderness was not a righteous nation, since the majority constantly had a tendency to rebel and murmur, yet God rescued them and brought them into the land on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant. Exodus 2:23\u201325 states:<\/p>\n
And it came to pass in the course of those many days, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God saw the children of Israel, and God took knowledge of them.<\/p>\n
Exodus 6:2\u20138 reaffirms:<\/p>\n
And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned. And moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments: and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land which I sware to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for a heritage: I am Jehovah.<\/p>\n
This is further reaffirmed in Nehemiah 9:7\u20138, 1 Chronicles 16:15\u201319, 2 Chronicles 20:7\u20138, and Psalm 105:7\u201312.
\nIn conjunction with the choosing of Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt, he was almost disqualified because of his failure to circumcise his son in Exodus 4:24\u201326:<\/p>\n
And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that Jehovah met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet; and she said, Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me. So he let him alone. Then she said, A bridegroom of blood art thou, because of the circumcision.<\/p>\n
Moses endangered his life by failing to circumcise his son in keeping with the penalty of the Abrahamic Covenant contained in Genesis 17:14 for failure to circumcize meant being cut off from among his people.
\nIt was on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant that God finally brought Israel into the Promised Land as God\u2019s last words to Moses made clear in Deuteronomy 34:4:<\/p>\n
And Jehovah said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.<\/p>\n
Although Israel in the land had a long history of disobedience and idolatry, and although God frequently disciplined the nation, yet He promised the nation would always survive on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant. On that basis, Moses pleaded with God to spare Israel from His divine wrath in Exodus 32:11\u201314:<\/p>\n
And Moses besought Jehovah his God, and said, Jehovah, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, that thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, saying, For evil did he bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And Jehovah repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.<\/p>\n
Another example of this is 2 Kings 13:22\u201323:<\/p>\n
And Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. But Jehovah was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet.<\/p>\n
While God used the Syrians to punish Israel, Syrian damage could only go so far because of this covenant. Certainly God expected Israel to be obedient, but Israel\u2019s obedience did not condition God\u2019s fulfillment of His promises. This is exactly what Dispensationalism means by an unconditional covenant.
\nIt was on the basis of this covenant that the Messiah came to bring redemption to Israel, according to Luke 1:54\u201355:<\/p>\n
He hath given help to Israel his servant, That he might remember mercy (As he spake unto our fathers) Toward Abraham and his seed for ever.<\/p>\n
And also according to Luke 1:68\u201373:<\/p>\n
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel; For he hath visited and wrought redemption for his people, And hath raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of his servant David (As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been from of old), Salvation from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To show mercy towards our fathers, And to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware unto Abraham our father, \u2026<\/p>\n
It was on the basis of this covenant that Jesus taught the fact of the resurrection when confronted by Sadducees who did not believe in it (Matt. 22:23\u201333). Paul made the same point in Acts 26:6\u20138.
\nIn Galatians 3:15\u201318, Paul drew a contrast between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic Covenants, pointing out that the Mosaic was temporary, while the Abrahamic was eternal.
\nThe author of Hebrews 6:13\u201320 derived his assurance of salvation on the basis of this covenant.
\nFinally, it is on the basis of this covenant that the final restoration will occur, according to Leviticus 26:40\u201342:<\/p>\n
And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their trespass which they trespassed against me, and also that, because they walked contrary unto me, I also walked contrary unto them, and brought them into the land of their enemies: if then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.<\/p>\n
Just as God fulfilled His promises to Israel in the past, He will do so again in the future because of the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant.
\nThe Abrahamic Covenant, being an unconditional covenant, is still very much in effect. In history, it was the basis for the Dispensation of Promise.<\/p>\n
(6) The Token of the Covenant<\/p>\n
The token or sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was circumcision, to be performed on males only and only on the eighth day of birth. Circumcision on the eighth day would distinguish Jewish circumcision from all other circumcisions practiced in that day. It would also serve as a reminder that this covenant was a blood covenant. It served as a sign of their Jewishness. Failure to do so would mean that the father would be \u201ccut off\u201d or executed. For this reason Moses almost died for failing to circumcise his second son and only when the act was done was the life of Moses spared (Exod. 4:24\u201326).<\/p>\n
(7) The Timing of the Provisions of the Covenant<\/p>\n
As stated earlier, while a covenant may be signed and sealed at a specific point of time, this does not mean that every provision goes immediately into effect. Three things happen. Some go into effect immediately, such as the changing of Abram\u2019s and Sarai\u2019s names and circumcision. Some go into effect in the near future, such as the birth of Isaac (25 years) and the Egyptian sojourn, enslavement, and the Exodus (400 years). Some go into effect in the distant future, such as the possession of all of the Promised Land by the patriarchs and their descendants.<\/p>\n
b. The Palestinian Covenant<\/p>\n
For lack of a better name, the second covenant is known as the Palestinian Covenant for it largely concerns the land known for centuries as Palestine. This is now an unfortunate term for two reasons. First, it was a name given to the land by the Roman Emperor Hadrian after the second Jewish revolt under Bar Cochba (A.D. 132\u2013135) for the purpose of erasing any Jewish remembrance of the land as part of his policy to \u201cde-judaize\u201d the land. Second, due to the historical events in the Middle East in this century, the name is associated more with Arabs than with Jews. Perhaps a better title would have been \u201cthe Land Covenant\u201d since \u201cPalestine\u201d is not a biblical designation anyway. However, since most are familiar with the above title, it will be so used in this work, but with reservation.
\nThe content of the Palestinian Covenant is found in Deuteronomy 29:1\u201330:20. Although this covenant is within the fifth book of Moses, Deuteronomy 29:1 clearly shows that the Palestinian Covenant is distinct from the Mosaic Covenant:<\/p>\n
These are the words of the covenant which Jehovah commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 30:1\u201310 states the key provisions of the Palestinian Covenant. Verses 5\u201310 of this passage relate some of the Lord\u2019s promises to His people, Israel:<\/p>\n
\u2026 and Jehovah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. And Jehovah thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, that persecuted thee. And thou shalt return and obey the voice of Jehovah, and do all his commandments, which I command thee this day. And Jehovah thy God will make thee plenteous in all the work of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, for good: for Jehovah will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers; if thou shalt obey the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto Jehovah thy God with all thy heat, and with all thy soul.<\/p>\n
The covenant was made between God and Israel. Eight provisions can be gleaned from it. First, Moses prophetically spoke of Israel\u2019s coming disobedience to the Mosaic Law and subsequent scattering over all the world (29:2\u201330:1). All remaining provisions speak of various facets of Israel\u2019s final restoration. Second, Israel will repent (30:2). Third, Messiah will return (30:3). Fourth, Israel will be regathered (30:3\u20134). Fifth, Israel will possess the Promised Land (30:5). Sixth, Israel will be regenerated (30:6). Seventh, the enemies of Israel will be judged (30:7). Eighth, Israel will receive full blessing, specifically the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom (30:8\u201310).
\nThe special importance of the Palestinian Covenant is that it reaffirmed Israel\u2019s title deed to the land. Although she would prove unfaithful and disobedient, the right to the land would never be taken from her. While her enjoyment of the land is conditioned on obedience, ownership of the land is unconditional. Furthermore, it shows that the conditional Mosaic Covenant did not lay aside the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant. It might be taken by some that the Mosaic Covenant displaced the Abrahamic Covenant, but the Palestinian Covenant shows that this is not true. The Palestinian Covenant is an enlargement of the original Abrahamic Covenant. It amplifies the land aspect and emphasizes the promise of the land to God\u2019s people in spite of unbelief.
\nThe Palestinian Covenant received its confirmation centuries later in Ezekiel 16:1\u201363. In this very important passage concerning God\u2019s relationship to Israel, God recounts His love of Israel in her infancy (vv. 1\u20137). Israel was chosen by God and became related to Jehovah by marriage and hence became known as the Wife of Jehovah (vv. 8\u201314). Israel, however, played the harlot (vv. 15\u201334); therefore, it was necessary to punish Israel by means of dispersion (vv. 35\u201352). Yet this dispersion is not final, for there will be a future restoration on the basis of the Palestinian Covenant (vv. 53\u201363).
\nThe Palestinian Covenant, being an unconditional covenant, is still very much in effect.<\/p>\n
c. The Davidic Covenant<\/p>\n
Two passages of Scripture set forth the teaching on the Davidic Covenant, and though they sound almost the same there are variations in the points they make. The first passage is 2 Samuel 7:11b\u201317, where the emphasis is on Solomon:<\/p>\n
Moreover Jehovah telleth thee that Jehovah will make thee a house. When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men; but my lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.<\/p>\n
The second account is found in 1 Chronicles 17:10b\u201315, where the emphasis is on the Messiah:<\/p>\n
Moreover I tell thee that Jehovah will build thee a house. And it shall come to pass, when thy days are fulfilled that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will set up thy seed after thee, who shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee; but I will settle him in my house and in my kingdom for ever; and his throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.<\/p>\n
This covenant was made between God and David, and David stands as the representative head of the Davidic House and Dynasty.
\nCareful study of both biblical accounts brings out the seven main provisions of the Davidic Covenant. First, David is promised an eternal house or dynasty (2 Sam. 7:11b, 16; 1 Chron. 17:10b). Nothing could ever destroy the House of David\u2014it will always be in existence. It is a promise that David will always have physical descendants. Second, one of David\u2019s own sons, specifically Solomon, was to be established on the throne after David (2 Sam. 7:12). Absalom and Adonijah, two of David\u2019s other sons, tried to usurp the throne; but Solomon, and Solomon alone, was to be established on David\u2019s throne. Third, Solomon would build the Temple (2 Sam. 7:13a). Although David had greatly desired to build God\u2019s Temple, his hands had shed much blood and he was guilty of one count of murder. Thus, he was forbidden to build the Temple, and the job would rest with his son, Solomon. Fourth, the Throne of David\u2019s and Solomon\u2019s kingdom was to be established forever (2 Sam. 7:13b, 16). It was not Solomon himself who was promised to be established forever, but rather the throne upon which he would sit. The throne emphasizes the right to rule, the authority of the king. Fifth, Solomon would be disciplined for disobedience, but God would not remove His lovingkindness from him (2 Sam. 7:14\u201315). Earlier God did remove His lovingkindness from King Saul because of disobedience. However, the promise is made that although Solomon may disobey and require God\u2019s discipline, God\u2019s lovingkindness will never depart from him. Because the covenant was unconditional, regardless of Solomon\u2019s disobedience and God\u2019s chastisement of Solomon, the covenant remained intact and fulfillment is sure. This was true, although the sin of Solomon (idolatry) was a far worse sin than the sin of Saul (improper sacrifice). That is the nature of an unconditional covenant. For that very reason, the kingdom was not divided in Solomon\u2019s lifetime, although it was his sin that caused the division (1 Kings 11:11\u201312). Furthermore, it was the Davidic Covenant that kept God from tearing away all the tribes from the House of David (1 Kings 11:13). Sixth, Messiah will come from the Seed of David (1 Chron. 17:11). In the I Chronicles passage, God is not speaking of one of David\u2019s own sons to be established upon the throne forever, but the seed of one of his sons coming many years later. Furthermore, in this passage it is the Person Himself who is established upon David\u2019s throne forever and not merely the throne. Seventh, the Messiah\u2019s throne, house, and kingdom will be established forever (1 Chron. 17:12\u201314). The emphasis in the II Samuel passage is on Solomon, but in the I Chronicles passage it is on the Messiah. That is why this passage does not mention the possibility of sin as the II Samuel passage does, for in the case of the Messiah no sin would be possible. The Messiah, as well as His throne, house, and kingdom, are to be established forever.
\nTo summarize, the Davidic Covenant promised four eternal things: an eternal house or dynasty, an eternal throne, an eternal kingdom, and an eternal descendent. The eternality of the house, throne, and kingdom are guaranteed because the Seed of David culminated in a person Who is Himself eternal: the Messiah, the God-Man.
\nThe unique importance of the Davidic Covenant is that it amplifies the seed aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant. According to the Abrahamic Covenant, the Messiah was to be of the Seed of Abraham. This only meant that He was to be a Jew and could be of any of the twelve tribes. Later, in the time of Jacob, the messianic seed aspect was limited to a member of the Tribe of Judah only (Gen. 49:10). Now the seed aspect is further narrowed to one family within the Tribe of Judah, the family of David. It will be narrowed further in Jeremiah 22:24\u201330 where it is decreed that while the Messiah was to be of the Seed of David, it was to be apart from Jechoniah.
\nIn a number of other passages the Davidic Covenant received further confirmation: 2 Samuel 23:1\u20135; Psalm 89:1\u201352; Isaiah 9:6\u20137; 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5\u20136; 30:8\u20139; 33:14\u201317, 19\u201326; 19\u201326; Ezekiel 37:24\u201325; Hosea 3:4\u20135; Amos 9:11; Luke 1:30\u201335, 68\u201370; and Acts 15:14\u201318. The Davidic Covenant, being an unconditional covenant, is still very much in effect.<\/p>\n
d. The New Covenant<\/p>\n
The content of the New Covenant is recorded in Jeremiah 31:31\u201334:<\/p>\n
Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring then out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.<\/p>\n
This covenant is made between God and Israel, and it receives further confirmation in other passages, including Isaiah 55:3; 59:21; 61:8\u20139; Jeremiah 32:40; Ezekiel 16:60; 34:25\u201331; 37:26\u201328; and, Romans 11:25\u201327.
\nFrom the original covenant and its various confirmations, a total of nine provisions can be found. First, it is an unconditional covenant involving God and both houses of Israel (Jer. 31:31). It is not merely made between Judah and God, or between Israel and God, but included both houses of Israel; hence it includes the entire Jewish nation, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Second, it is clearly distinct from the Mosaic Covenant (Jer. 31:32). It is not merely a further elaboration of the Mosaic Covenant, but it is distinct from it; and it is ultimately to replace it, for the Mosaic Covenant was now considered broken. Third, it promises the regeneration of Israel (Jer. 32:33; Isa. 59:21). The key aspect of this entire covenant is the blessing of salvation; included in this covenant is Israel\u2019s national regeneration. Fourth, the regeneration of Israel is to be universal among all Jews (Jer. 31:34a; Isa. 61:9). The national salvation is to extend to every individual Jewish person, and it is to be true through succeeding generations from the time that the initial regeneration of Israel occurs. Thus, during the kingdom, the unregenerate people will be among the Gentiles only. In the entire period of the kingdom there will be no unsaved Jews. That is the reason there will be no need for one Jew to say to another, know the Lord, for they shall al know Him. Fifth, there is provision for the forgiveness of sin (Jer. 31:34b). The New Covenant will do the very thing which the Mosaic Covenant was unable to do. The latter was only able to cover the sins of Israel, but the New Covenant will take them away. The sixth provision is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:27). The reason Israel failed to keep the law under the Mosaic Covenant was that the people lacked the power to comply with the righteous standards of God. The Mosaic Law did not provide the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; that was not its purpose. However, the New Covenant will do just that, and every Jew will be enabled to do the righteous work of God. Seventh, Israel will be showered with material blessings (Jer. 32:41; Isa. 61:8; Ezek. 34:25\u201327). The Mosaic Law did provide material blessings for obedience. For the most part Israel was in disobedience because of her failure to keep the law. However, such failure will not exist under the New Covenant. Along with Israel\u2019s regeneration and empowerment to keep the law, material blessings will be given by the Lord. Eighth, the sanctuary will be rebuilt (Ezek. 37:26\u201328). The Davidic Covenant provided for the building of the first Temple by Solomon; the New Covenant will provide for the building of the Messianic or Millennial Temple. This temple will be a continual reminder to Israel of all that God has done. The ninth provision is the Law of Christ, which will be discussed under Israel Present.
\nThe importance of the New Covenant is that it amplifies the blessing aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, especially in relationship to salvation. In relationship to the Church, the New Covenant is the basis for the Dispensation of Grace. In relationship to Israel, it will be the basis for the Dispensation of the Kingdom.
\nThe New Covenant, being an unconditional covenant, is still very much in effect.
\nAgain, these are Jewish covenants in that they were made with the Jewish people and are to be fulfilled to and by the Jewish people. The Church\u2019s relationship to these covenants will be discussed under Israel Present.<\/p>\n
3. The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses<\/p>\n
While the previous four covenants were unconditional, this one is conditional. A conditional covenant is a bilateral covenant and may be defined as a proposal of God to man conditioned by the formula, if you will, whereby He promises to grant special blessings to man providing man fulfills certain conditions contained in the covenant. Man\u2019s failure to do so often results in punishment. In this case, conditions had to be met before God\u2019s promise could be experienced.<\/p>\n
a. The Mosaic Covenant<\/p>\n
The Mosaic Covenant contains very extensive detailed information, and the Scriptural account of the covenant extends from Exodus 20:1 through Deuteronomy 28:68. The parties involved in this pact are God and Israel. The covenant was made with Israel and Moses acted as a representative of Israel. This is clearly brought out in Exodus 19:3\u20138:<\/p>\n
Moses went up unto God, and Jehovah called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles\u2019 wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which Jehovah commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do. And Moses reported the words of the people unto Jehovah.<\/p>\n
The Mosaic Covenant was ratified by blood and signed and sealed by the Shechinah Glory (Exod. 24:1\u201311).
\nThe key provision was the Law of Moses, which contained a total of 613 commandments. Being a conditional covenant, it provided blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. This conditional nature is spelled out in Exodus 15:26:<\/p>\n
\u2026 and he said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of Jehovah thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his eyes, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I have put upon the Egyptians: for I am Jehovah that healeth thee.<\/p>\n
This also comes out at the time of the actual making of the covenant in Exodus 19:3\u20138.
\nThe key element of the entire Mosaic Law was the blood sacrifice, brought out in Leviticus 17:11:<\/p>\n
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.<\/p>\n
There were a total of five different types of offerings (Lev. 1\u20137). However, the blood of the animal only covered the sin, but did not remove it (Heb. 10:1\u20134). It did provide for the forgiveness of sin and for the restoration of fellowship.
\nThe Mosaic Covenant imposed a restriction upon one of the provisions of the Noahic Covenant: no longer would Israel be allowed to eat all animals without limitation. The Mosaic Covenant prescribed what the Jews could eat: seafood had to have both fins and scales; animals had to both chew the cud and be cloven-hoofed; all birds of prey were forbidden; and, no insects were permitted except for certain types of locust. It also elaborated on what crimes incurred the death penalty (adultery, idolatry, cursing God, cursing parents, etc.). Circumcision now became more than merely a sign of Jewishness as was true of the Abrahamic Covenant. It now signified submission to the law and obligated the Jews to keep the whole law. Gentile converts to Mosaic Judaism had to be circumcised. The Sabbath was the token of the Mosaic Covenant, as the rainbow was of the Noahic and circumcision of the Abrahamic.
\nThe Mosaic Covenant was the basis for the Dispensation of Law. It was the one Jewish covenant that was conditional.<\/p>\n
b. The Law of Moses<\/p>\n
It is important to state at the very beginning that the law was given to Israel and not to the Gentiles or to the Church. Deuteronomy 4:7\u20138 states this point clearly:<\/p>\n
For what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is whensoever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?<\/p>\n
Psalm 147:19\u201320 reaffirms that the law was given to Israel:<\/p>\n
He showeth his word unto Jacob, His statutes and his ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: And as for his ordinances, they have not known them. Praise ye Jehovah.<\/p>\n
The same point is made by Malachi 4:4:<\/p>\n
Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordinances.<\/p>\n
As stated earlier, the content of the Mosaic Covenant was the Law of Moses which contained a total of 613 specific individual commandments. These are often categorized in various categories. Rabbinic Judaism divides them into positive and negative commandments. Among Christians, there is a variety of different categories, though two are primary. The first is the Ten Commandments, as separated from the other 603. A more common division is that of moral, ceremonial, and legal or civil, though there is no absolute agreement as to which ones fall where. However, the Law of Moses never divides itself into these categories, but views itself as a single unit. The prophets of Israel also viewed the law as a unit, not to be broken in any one particular. While the above divisions are helpful in studying the different types of commandments, it is not to be assumed that any of these are biblical divisions. They are not. The Law of Moses is a single unit and all Scripture subsequent to Moses treats it as such.<\/p>\n
(1) The Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n
Let it be stated categorically that Dispensationalism has not and does not believe that the Law of Moses was a means of salvation. This concept is rejected because it would make salvation by means of works. Salvation was and always is by grace through faith. While the content of faith has changed from age to age, depending on progressive revelation, the means of salvation never changes. The law was not given to serve as a means of salvation (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 21). It was given to a people already redeemed from Egypt and not in order to redeem them. However, there were several purposes for the giving of the law. As found in both testaments, there were at least nine reasons for the Law of Moses.
\nThe first purpose was to reveal the holiness of God and to reveal the standard of righteousness which God demanded for a proper relationship with Him (Lev. 19:1\u20132, 37; 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:15\u201316). The law itself was holy, and righteous, and good (Rom. 7:12).
\nThe second purpose of the law was to provide the rule of conduct for the Old Testament saints. For example, Romans 3:28 makes it clear that no man was justified by the works of the law. The law was never a means of salvation. The law always had other purposes. In this case, it provided the rule of life for the Old Testament believer (Lev. 11:44\u201345; 19:2; 20:7\u20138, 26). For the Old Testament believer, the law was the center of his spiritual life and his delight (Psalm 119; note especially vv. 77, 97, 103\u2013104, and 159).
\nThe third purpose was to provide for Israel occasions for individual and corporate worship. The seven holy seasons of Israel (Lev. 23) is one example of this.
\nThe fourth purpose was to keep the Jews a distinct people (Lev. 11:44\u201345; Deut. 7:6; 14:1\u20132). This was the specific reason for many of the laws, such as the dietary laws, clothing laws, etc. The Jews were to be distinct from all other people in a variety of ways, as in the worship habits (Lev. 1\u20137, 16, 23), eating habits (Lev. 11:1\u201347), sexual habits (Lev. 12), clothing habits (Lev. 19:19), and even the way they cut their beards (Lev. 19:27). Other passages for this point include Exodus 19:5\u20138 and 31:13.
\nThe fifth purpose is stated in Ephesians 2:11\u201316. A more detailed exposition of this passage will be given under Israel Present. For the purpose of this section, it is important to note that the Law of Moses served as a middle wall of partition. The four unconditional covenants are Jewish covenants and God\u2019s blessings, both physical and spiritual, are mediated through the four covenants, the covenants of the promise mentioned in verse 12. Because of the Jewish nature of these unconditional covenants, a conditional covenant was also added, the Mosaic Covenant, containing the Law of Moses, the law of commandments and ordinances of verse 15. The purpose of the law then was to become a middle wall of partition to keep Gentiles, as Gentiles, from enjoying the Jewish spiritual blessings of the unconditional covenants. Because of this purpose, Gentiles were both alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise. The only way Gentiles could enjoy the spiritual blessings of the Jewish covenants during the period of the law was to take upon themselves the obligation of the law, undergo the rite of circumcision, and then live like every Jew had to live. Gentiles, as Gentiles, could not enjoy the Jewish spiritual blessings, only Gentiles as proselytes to Mosaic Judaism.
\nThe sixth purpose for the Mosaic Law was to reveal sin. Three passages in Romans point this out. The first is Romans 3:19\u201320, where Paul emphasized that there is no justification through the law; by means of the law no Jewish person will be justified. What is the law if not a way of justification, a way of salvation? The law was there to provide the knowledge of sin; to reveal exactly what sin is. The second passage is Romans 5:20: the law was given so that trespasses might be made very clear. How does one know he has sinned? He knows because the law spelled out in detail what was permitted and what was not permitted. The law with 613 commandments revealed sin. The third passage is Romans 7:7. Paul again emphasized the fact that the law was given so that sin might be made known. Paul became aware of his sinful state by looking into the law and knowing that on the basis of the law, he fell short.
\nThe seventh purpose was to make one sin more. Romans 4:15 states:<\/p>\n
For the law worketh wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression.<\/p>\n
In Romans 5:20 he adds:<\/p>\n
And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly.<\/p>\n
The picture Paul gives is that the law came in to cause more sin, to actually make one sin more. How does that work? Paul explained in Romans 7:7\u201313 and 1 Corinthians 15:56. The latter passage reads:<\/p>\n
The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law:<\/p>\n
Basically what Paul taught is that the sin nature needs a base of operation. Furthermore, the sin nature uses the law as a base of operation. Paul said, Where there is no law, neither is there transgression. He did not mean, of course, that there was no sin before the law was given. The term \u201ctransgression\u201d is a specific type of sin: violation of a specific commandment. Men were sinners before the law was given, but they were not transgressors of the law until the law was given. Once the law was given, the sin nature had a base of operation, causing the individual to violate these commandments and sin all the more.
\nThe eighth purpose was to show the sinner that there was nothing he could do on his own to please God and had no ability to keep the law perfectly or to attain the righteousness of the law (Rom. 7:14\u201325).
\nThis led to the ninth purpose which was to drive one to faith, according to Romans 8:1\u20134 and Galatians 3:24\u201325. The final purpose of the law was to bring one to saving faith, faith in the Messiah.
\nThe purposes of the Law of Moses can be categorized as follows: (1) in relation to God, (a) to reveal His holiness; and, (b) to reveal His righteous standards; (2) in relation to Israel, (a) to keep Israel a distinct people; (b) to provide a rule of life for the Old Testament saint; and, (c) to provide for individual and corporate worship; (3) in relation to Gentiles, to serve as a middle wall of partition and thus keep them strangers to the unconditional Jewish covenants so as not to partake of Jewish spiritual blessings as Gentiles, but only as proselytes to Mosaic Judaism; and, (4) in relation to sin, (a) to reveal and show what sin is; (b) to make one sin more; (c) to show that a man cannot attain the righteousness of the law on his own; and, (d) to drive one to faith.<\/p>\n
(2) Circumcision<\/p>\n
Circumcision was prescribed under the Abrahamic Covenant, but it was also prescribed under the Mosaic Covenant (Lev. 12:3), though the significance was not the same. Under the Abrahamic Covenant, it was mandatory for Jews only and it was a sign of their Jewishness. Under the Law of Moses, it was mandatory for both Jews and Gentiles and it was a means of submission to the law. It obligated the one circumcised to keep the whole law, according to Galatians 5:3:<\/p>\n
Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.<\/p>\n
(3) The Sabbath<\/p>\n
Just as the rainbow is a sign of the Noahic Covenant and circumcision the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. The observance of the Sabbath clearly begins with Moses and did not precede him. There is no command for anyone to keep the Sabbath before Moses, nor is there any record of anyone keeping the Sabbath between Adam and Moses. It is first found in Exodus 16:23\u201330, where the word is found for the first time; it is the first occurrence of both the word and the concept. Since it was not known before this time, the full form is used: shabbaton shabbat kodesh (\u201ca sabbatical celebration, a holy Sabbath\u201d). The Hebrew root for the word means, \u201cto desist,\u201d \u201cto cease,\u201d or \u201cto rest.\u201d There is no definite article before the word in the Hebrew text which, grammatically, can imply that the Sabbath was unknown until this period. Literally, the text reads, \u201ctomorrow is a rest of a holy Sabbath.\u201d The fact that so many disobeyed and went out to gather manna on the Sabbath also implies that they were not accustomed to simply resting on that day. The specific prohibition at this point was not to gather manna on the Sabbath day.
\nConcerning the Sabbath under the Law of Moses, four things should be noted. First, the Sabbath as a command was embodied as part of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:8\u201311. The command begins with the word remember, since they had already received one Sabbath commandment in Exodus 16. The second account of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:12 states, Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Rather than \u201cremember,\u201d the command is to \u201cobserve\u201d since the Sabbath was not mentioned previously in Deuteronomy. They were to keep the day holy, meaning they were to keep it as a special day separate from every other day, and dedicated to God. The main element involved in keeping it a holy day was a cessation from work, including family members, servants, and domesticated animals. It should be noted that in neither version of the Ten Commandments is there any obligation to worship the Lord on that day.
\nSecond, the emphasis of the Sabbath is not as a day of corporate worship, but as a day of rest. According to verse 11, because God rested on the seventh day, Israel is now to rest on the seventh day. Only now is shabbat actually identified with the seventh day of Genesis 2:2\u20133 for the word was not used in the Genesis account. This does not imply that the seventh day of Genesis 2:2\u20133 was already set aside for humanity. The Hebrew, al-kein, as lexical studies show, means that the present command is based upon a previous event. It does not mean that the command itself was previously in force. The construction connects causatively an event in the past with a situation sometime later.
\nAs the Sabbath commandment was further developed in other parts of the Law of Moses, what was meant by \u201cresting\u201d on the Sabbath was largely a matter of prohibitions: no gathering of manna (Exod. 16:23\u201330); no traveling (Exod. 16:29); no kindling of fire (Exod. 35:3); and, no gathering of wood (Num. 15:32). Outside the law, other prohibitions on the Sabbath included: no burden bearing (Jer. 17:21); no trading (Amos 8:5); and, no marketing (Neh. 10:31; 13:15, 19). Nothing was said about corporate worship. In the Law of Moses, the Sabbath was a day of rest and cessation, not a day of corporate worship. The Sabbath synagogue services found in the New Testament originated with the Babylonian Captivity, not with the Law of Moses. While it was not a day of total inactivity, it was to be a day of rest and refreshment from the regular work of the other six days. While the rest itself may have been an act of worship, corporate worship on the Sabbath was not a factor in the Old Testament.
\nIn connection with the Sabbath, the phrase a holy convocation is often found, which is sometimes used as the basis for teaching that the Sabbath was a day of corporate worship for all. However, this phrase is used only in conjunction with the priesthood and sacrifices. The corporate connotation is for the priests only and the place of this corporate worship is in the Tabernacle or Temple and it is for the purpose of sacrifices. Since only the priesthood could do the work of sacrificing, the holy convocation only applied o them. The phrase is found a total of 19 times, all in three books of Moses: Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Eleven of the 19 are found in one chapter: Leviticus 23. Six others are found in the two chapters of Numbers 28\u201329.
\nThe phrase is found twice in Exodus 12:16:<\/p>\n
And in the first day there shall be to you a holy convocation, and in the seventh day a holy convocation; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you.<\/p>\n
The first and seventh days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread were to be a holy convocation. This involved abstaining from work. While no sacrifices are mentioned here, they will be mentioned for this occasion later.
\nThe third time is in Leviticus 23:2:<\/p>\n
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, The set feasts of Jehovah, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my set feasts.<\/p>\n
This verse declares that the set feasts or \u201choly seasons\u201d are to be holy convocations. As the chapter shows, they are all connected with sacrifices.
\nThe fourth time is in Leviticus 23:3:<\/p>\n
Six days shall work be done: but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of work: it is a sabbath unto Jehovah in all your dwellings.<\/p>\n
This is a reference to the Sabbath as a holy convocation and it was a day of doubling the daily sacrifices and a day of rest.
\nThe fifth time is Leviticus 23:4:<\/p>\n
There are the set feasts of Jehovah, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season.<\/p>\n
This is a restatement of verse two, that the set feasts or \u201choly seasons\u201d are holy convocations.
\nA sixth and seventh time is in Leviticus 23:7\u20138:<\/p>\n
In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah seven days: in the seventh day is a holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work.<\/p>\n
This, again, is a reference to the first and seventh days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread as in the Exodus passage. On both days, work is prohibited and it was a time to offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah seven days, and it took a convocation of priests to offer these sacrifices.
\nThe eighth reference is in Leviticus 23:21:<\/p>\n
And ye shall make proclamation on the selfsame day; there shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall do no servile work: it is a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.<\/p>\n
This holy convocation is a reference to the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and here too, it was to be a day of rest. The previous verses (vv. 17\u201320) show this to be a day of sacrifices for which the priesthood would have to convocate.
\nThe ninth reference is in Leviticus 23:24:<\/p>\n
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall be a solemn rest unto you, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.<\/p>\n
This reference is to the Feast of Trumpets, which is a holy convocation where no work is permitted and the priesthood had to offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah (v. 25)
\nThe tenth reference is in Leviticus 23:27:<\/p>\n
Howbeit on the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement: it shall be a holy convocation unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah.<\/p>\n
This is a reference to the Day of Atonement which is a holy convocation for no work was allowed and they were to offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah.
\nThe eleventh and twelfth references are in Leviticus 23:35\u201336:<\/p>\n
On the first day shall be a holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah: on the eighth day shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah: it is a solemn assembly; ye shall do no servile work.<\/p>\n
These holy convocations refer to the first and eighth days of the Feast of Tabernacles, which are holy convocation(s), for no work was allowed on those days and twice it is declared: Ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah.
\nThe thirteenth reference is in Leviticus 23:37:<\/p>\n
These are the set feasts of Jehovah, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto Jehovah, a burnt-offering, and a meal-offering, a sacrifice, and drink-offerings, each on its own day; \u2026<\/p>\n
This is a restatement of verses two and four that the set feasts are holy convocations. It is clearly stated that the purpose of these holy convocations is to offer offerings, a priestly function.
\nThe remaining six passages are in the two chapters of Numbers 28\u201329, which deal with the special sacrifices to be offered on the occasions of the set feasts or \u201choly seasons\u201d of Leviticus 23.
\nThe fourteen and fifteenth passages are Numbers 28:18 and 25:<\/p>\n
In the first day shall be a holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work; \u2026 And on the seventh day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work.<\/p>\n
This is another reference to the first and seventh days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and verses 19\u201324, the verses between 18 and 25, detail the sacrifices and offerings for this occasion.
\nThe sixteenth passage is Numbers 28:26:<\/p>\n
Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye offer a new meal-offering unto Jehovah in your feast of weeks, ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work; \u2026<\/p>\n
This is a reference to the Feast of Firstfruits, with the following verses (vv. 27\u201331) detailing the sacrifices and offerings for the occasion.
\nThe seventeenth passage is Numbers 29:1:<\/p>\n
And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing of trumpets unto you.<\/p>\n
This reference is to the Feast of Trumpets and it is a holy convocation for the following verses (vv. 2\u20136) spell out the sacrifices and offerings for this feast.
\nThe eighteenth passage is Numbers 29:7:<\/p>\n
And on the tenth day of this seventh month ye shall have a holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall do no manner of work; \u2026<\/p>\n
This is a reference to the Day of Atonement and the special offerings for this occasion are then detailed in verses 8\u201311.
\nThe nineteenth passage is Numbers 29:12:<\/p>\n
And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto Jehovah seven days: \u2026<\/p>\n
This final reference is to the Feast of Tabernacles and its special sacrifices are detailed in verses 13\u201338.
\nTo conclude, in all cases, the phrase holy convocation refers to a convocation of priests for the purpose of performing special sacrifices and the Sabbath was one of those occasions. It was not a time of corporate worship for all Israel. So the one passage used to try to substantiate corporate worship on the Sabbath is Leviticus 23:3, which refers to the Sabbath as a holy convocation and has to do with priestly corporate sacrifices. While it has relevance to family gatherings, these were not corporate acts of worship. As Dr. Louis Goldberg of Moody Bible Institute states:<\/p>\n
On the Sabbath there was to be complete rest (physical) and holy convocation (spiritual refreshing) before the Lord.<\/p>\n
Even Leviticus 23:3 states concerning the Sabbath, \u201cit is a sabbath unto Jehovah in all your dwellings.\u201d Again, the emphasis has to do with staying at home (Exod. 16:29) and resting as a family, rather than getting together in corporate worship. As Dr. Goldberg also points out, the rest \u201cwas also to include spiritual renewal.\u201d The expression holy convocation emphasized that on such occasions the priests were to offer special sacrifices. In reality, the Mosaic Law mandated corporate worship only on three occasions (Passover, Weeks, and Tabernacles), when they were to migrate to wherever the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, stood (Shiloh, Jerusalem). Corporate worship by non-Levites was mandated only three times a year, but not on a weekly Sabbath. This would have been physically impossible in light of the time it took to journey during biblical times. The penalty for profaning the Sabbath was death, and to profane the Sabbath was to consider it like any other day. Therefore, on the Sabbath they were to do no labor and they were to stay home and rest (Exod. 16:29).
\nThird, the Sabbath was a sign. It was a sign of the Mosaic Covenant according to Exodus 31:12\u201317. The Sabbath is now also called an ot, a sign of God\u2019s sanctifying Israel. It is a sign that God ceased working after six days, and so Jews are commanded to cease from work after six days. The penalty for failure is death. Specifically, the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel, that Israel has been sanctified, that is, has been set apart from all other nations. According to this passage then, the Sabbath in relationship to Israel is a memorial of creation and a sign of Israel\u2019s covenantal relationship that began at Mount Sinai.
\nThe Sabbath was also a sign that God brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, a sign of the Exodus according to Deuteronomy 5:12\u201315. Israel had been a slave in the land of Egypt, and God brought Israel out with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm. The Sabbath is also to be kept as a sign and as a memorial of the Exodus experience. It is this same Point that Ezekiel emphasizes (20:12, 20). Both verses from Ezekiel are in the context of a rehearsing of God\u2019s deliverance of Israel from the land of Egypt. In Ezekiel, the Sabbath was still a sign of Israel\u2019s setting apart, a memorial of the Exodus, and a sign that Jehovah is Israel\u2019s God.
\nBecause the Sabbath was a sign of the Mosaic Covenant, just as circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, it is obvious that the Sabbath can only be related to Israel, since only Israel was set apart at Sinai and only Israel has been delivered from the and of Egypt. God never delivered the Church in general out of Egypt, or the Seventh Day Adventist Church in particular. In the context of the Mosaic Law, the Sabbath and the reasons for the Sabbath can only be related to the Jewish nation. The reasons given for Sabbath observance in the Law of Moses then included a memorial of creation, a memorial of the Exodus, a sign of Israel\u2019s sanctification or setting apart as a nation, and a sign of the Mosaic Covenant. No one single event is given as the subject of its observance, but several. Because the Sabbath is a sign of the Mosaic Covenant, it is in force for the duration of the covenant. If there is a time when the covenant comes to an end, the sign would no longer be obligatory. This issue will be dealt with later.
\nFourth, there were special ceremonial aspects to the observance of the Sabbath. Besides setting the day apart as a day of rest and a holy convocation in their dwellings, other commandments included the putting out of new showbread (Lev. 24:8) and doubling the daily sacrifices (Num. 28:9).<\/p>\n
4. The Remnant of Israel<\/p>\n
The doctrine of the remnant means that, within the Jewish nation as a whole, there are always some who believe and all those who believe among Israel comprise the Remnant of Israel. The remnant at any point of history may be large or small but there is never a time when it is non-existent. Only believers comprise the remnant, but not all believers are part of the remnant for the remnant is a Jewish remnant and is, therefore, comprised of Jewish believers. Furthermore, the remnant is always part of the nation as a whole and not detached from the nation as a separate entity. The remnant is distinct, but distinct within the nation.
\nThe concept of the Remnant of Israel was true from the very beginning of Israel\u2019s history as they began to multiply. As a doctrine, the theology of the remnant begins with the prophets and the development of the doctrine continues through the New Testament. The historical event that gave rise to the doctrine involves Elijah the prophet. Because of Israel\u2019s idolatry in the worship of Baal, God sent a drought upon the nation as a divine discipline, a drought announced by Elijah in 1 Kings 17. The drought was so severe that eventually Elijah had to leave Israel for Phoenicia to find sustenance. In 1 Kings 18, Elijah returned to Israel and challenged the prophets of Baal to a divine duel to determine once and for all who is the true God. Baal failed to consume his sacrifice but the God of Israel consumed His. The prophets of Baal were, therefore, slain and the drought was broken. In chapter 19, Elijah\u2019s victory turned sour when Jezebel threatened his life. Elijah understood her actions to mean that Israel would not repudiate the worship of Baal and fled Israel for Judah; in a depressed state he entered into the Negev Desert and prayed to die. Instead, he was fed twice by an angel and continued his journey to Mount Sinai where he had a unique encounter with God. When God asked Elijah the purpose of his coming to Sinai, the place where the Mosaic Covenant was made, Elijah responded in 1 Kings 19:10:<\/p>\n
And he said, I have been very jealous for Jehovah, the God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword: and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.<\/p>\n
This is a severe indictment against Israel by a prophet who suffered and struggled to bring the nation to repentance, but to no avail. This type of indictment, if true, required divine discipline. God\u2019s response and action is spelled out in 1 Kings 19:11\u201313a:<\/p>\n
And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before Jehovah. And, behold, Jehovah passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before Jehovah; but Jehovah was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but Jehovah was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but Jehovah was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave.<\/p>\n
God\u2019s response was to send three noisy things which did not contain the presence of God and then a fourth thing, a quiet thing, which did contain the presence of God: the still small voice. This contained God\u2019s presence so Elijah wrapped his face in his mantle, a natural Jewish response as this was a common Jewish reaction whenever one thought he might be in the presence of God. Then God again asked him why he came to Mount Sinai (v. 13b) and Elijah again issued the same indictment against Israel (v. 14). To this God responded in verses 15\u201318:<\/p>\n
And Jehovah said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, thou shalt anoint Hazael to be king over Syria; and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room. And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. Yet will I leave me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.<\/p>\n
The parallel of these verses with verses 11\u201313 should not be missed. In response to Elijah\u2019s indictment against Israel, God sent three noisy things against Israel; while He sends all three things, God\u2019s presence is not in them. The first is Hazael, the king of Syria. Hazael corresponds to the wind. Just as the wind beat against the mountain, Hazael beat against Israel (2 Kings 8:7\u201315; 10:32\u201333; 13:3, 22\u201325) until he reduced Israel\u2019s holdings considerably. Jehu corresponds to the earthquake; as the earthquake split the mountain, Jehu caused a civil war which totally destroyed the Dynasty and House of Ahab, as well as royal members of the House of Judah (2 Kings 9:1\u201310:36). Elisha corresponds to the fire. Just as the fire burned against the mountain, Elisha burned against Israel and often where Elisha went, death followed (2 Kings 2:23\u201324). God did send all three noisy things, but God\u2019s presence was not in them. God then tells Elijah that he was not the only one left who was faithful, for God had seven thousand others. These seven thousand were the remnant of that day, quite small compared to the nation as a whole. The remnant corresponds to the still small voice. The remnant in contrast to Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha, is the quiet thing; so quiet, that Elijah did not know they even existed. God\u2019s presence was in this remnant.
\nIt was with this historical remnant of the seven thousand of Elijah\u2019s day with which the doctrine of the Remnant of Israel began; the Scriptures deal with the remnant doctrine past, present, and future. In this section we are only concerned with the past element of the remnant doctrine.
\nIt is Isaiah the prophet who put the remnant concept into theological terms. It is mostly found in the unit comprising chapters 7\u201312 and called \u201cThe Book of Immanuel\u201d since, in the Hebrew text, that name is found three times (7:14; 8:8, 10). Building on the contrast of the noise and the quiet, Isaiah (8:5\u20138) points out that the non-remnant tends to put its trust in that which is noisy (the Assyrian Army), but the remnant has a quiet confidence in the God of Israel and the One to come, Immanuel. Ultimately the noise will destroy the non-remnant which puts its faith in the noise, but Immanuel will save the believing (8:9\u201311). Immanuel thus becomes the point of division between the remnant and the non-remnant. For the remnant, Immanuel will prove to be a sanctuary, but for the non-remnant Immanuel will prove to be a Stone of Stumbling and a Rock of Offense (8:14\u201315). The remnant places its trust in the law and the prophets (8:16) and, therefore, waits upon the Lord (8:17). So important was the doctrine of the remnant to Isaiah that he named one of his sons Shear Yashuv which means \u201ca remnant shall return\u201d (7:3). With that naming, Isaiah was looking forward to the future final salvation of the Remnant of Israel (10:20\u201323). Until then, it is God who will protect the remnant and guarantee its survival (46:3\u20134). More will be said about the doctrine of the remnant under other relevant sections.<\/p>\n
B. Israel Present<\/p>\n
As was pointed out in the previous chapter, this has been Dispensationalism\u2019s weakest area. This is sad because only Dispensationalism, and its consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, can allow for a full scale theological development of Israel Present. The lack of development has caused a great deal of theological confusion among Dispensationalists concerning the Jews today and the role of Jewish believers today. As a result, when dealing with Jewish issues today, many Dispensationalists sound like Covenant Theologians.<\/p>\n
1. The Kingdom of God Program<\/p>\n
The kingdom program of God is an all pervasive program which encompasses past, present, and future. Technically, a study of the kingdom program can be placed under any and all three categories. For the purpose of Israelology, it will be dealt with under Israel Present since Israel Present is the connecting link with Israel Past and Israel Future; this is as good a place as any where the kingdom program can be stated.
\nAs seen in previous chapters, all four systems recognize that there is more than one facet of God\u2019s kingdom program. Minimally, all see at least two facets: a present form of the kingdom and a future form of the kingdom. Unfortunately, many Dispensationalists have tried to explain the different facets by making a distinction between the terms \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven.\u201d Covenant Theologians have correctly attacked his distinction for these are interchangeable terms as any parallel study of the synoptic gospels will clearly show. Such a comparative study will quickly show that in the very same places where Mark and Luke use \u201cKingdom of God,\u201d Matthew uses \u201cKingdom of Heaven.\u201d In fact, \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d is used exclusively by Matthew. A good way of seeing this is by looking at the parallel accounts of Mark and Luke, with Matthew 13. Matthew consistently used the expression, \u201cKingdom of Heaven.\u201d However, in the parallel accounts of Mark four and Luke eight, both Mark and Luke consistently used \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d This shows that the terms \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d are synonymous terms. The reason Matthew used \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d is because he was writing his gospel to Jews. Jewish people were and are sensitive about using the name \u201cGod\u201d in vain so they try to avoid using the term whenever they are writing or speaking; they tend to use the term only within the confines of the synagogue or in religious discussions. Outside of this, they would use a substitute such as Ha Shem, \u201cThe Name,\u201d or \u201cheaven\u201d for \u201cGod.\u201d Matthew, writing to Jews and aware of Jewish sensitivities, used the expression \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d so that it would be more readily acceptable to his Jewish readers. However, Mark wrote to Romans and Luke wrote to Greeks who did not have these sensitivities so they used the expression \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d What Matthew meant by the \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d is no different from what Mark and Luke meant by the \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d The expressions \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d are synonymous and interchangeable expressions. The criticisms levelled by Covenant Theologians against any such distinction are absolutely correct.
\nHowever, Covenant Theology has overstated its criticism of Dispensationalism on this point on two counts. First, as chapter IX showed, not all Dispensationalists make such a distinction. Covenant Theologians either have been ignorant of this fact or have deliberately chosen to ignore it. Second, they have tried to make this distinction so germane to the dispensational system that they often imply that by disproving any such distinction exists, they have destroyed the system. Ladd is one example of the latter. In a work in which all four views are presented by their adherents, Herman A. Hoyt presented the view of Dispensationalism without making any distinction between the two terms. Ladd, speaking for Covenant Premillennialism had a hard time with this and remarked:<\/p>\n
There is nothing distinctively dispensational about Hoyt\u2019s definition of the kingdom \u2026 Furthermore, his distinction between God\u2019s kingdom and his mediatorial kingdom is not the usual dispensational distinctive \u2026 It is also interesting to find Hoyt making no distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.<\/p>\n
Ladd wants to make such a distinction germane to Dispensationalism in order to discredit the entire system; he is disappointed that Hoyt failed to do so. Ladd insists that Hoyt\u2019s distinction between God\u2019s Universal and Mediatorial Kingdom \u201cis not the usual dispensational distinctive.\u201d However, at least twenty years earlier, two leading dispensational writers, McClain and Pentecost, wrote extensively on the dispensational view of the Kingdom of God and that is the distinction they made and Hoyt followed their lead. Ladd and so many other Covenant Theologian critics simply ignore what Dispensationalists are saying and often impose a doctrine on Dispensationalists that either no Dispensationalist holds or a doctrine held by some Dispensationalists which is not germane to the system, though obviously Covenant Theologians wish it was. More recently, Stanley D. Toussaint, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, has stated:<\/p>\n
Some who hold to the contingency of the coming of Christ\u2019s kingdom to this earth maintain a distinction between the terms kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven. It is said that because the kingdom of heaven is likened to the lump of dough with leaven (Matt. 13:33) it contains hypocrites as well as genuine believers in that leaven portrays evil. On the other hand, the kingdom of God is composed only of the saved because John 3:3 says only the born again enter the kingdom of God. However, Matthew 18:3 also excludes hypocrites from the kingdom of heaven. Only the genuinely converted may enter this kingdom. Therefore, this chapter will assume the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are essentially synonymous and both refer to the kingdom itself.<\/p>\n
At the risk of being ignored again, let it be clearly stated that there is no need to make any distinction between \u201cKingdom of God\u201d and \u201cKingdom of Heaven.\u201d The view of this work is that no such distinction exists and these are synonymous and interchangeable terms. What all Dispensationalists do recognize is the fact that there is more than one facet to God\u2019s kingdom program. So have Covenant Theologians though they disagree among themselves as to how many facets there are and the nature of each facet. Their conclusions determine their view of the Millennium and, therefore, end up being either postmillennial, amillennial, or premillennial. Dispensationalists are far more in agreement among themselves as to the number of facets of the Kingdom of God and the nature of each facet.
\nBefore dealing with the individual facets of the Kingdom of God, a working definition is in order. A good definition is that the Kingdom of God is God\u2019s rule. It is the sphere over which the sovereign God rules. There may be degrees of authority in different aspects of His kingdom program, but the basic meaning is that God rules. Pentecost adds that \u201cthere are three interrelated ideas which must be considered in establishing a biblical concept of the term.\u201d The first is the \u201cright to rule\u2014the authority or dominion granted to someone reigning over a kingdom.\u201d The second \u201crealm of rule\u201d which emphasizes the realm \u201cin which ruling authority is exercised,\u201d which \u201cinvolves the subjects of the one in authority rather than the authority himself.\u201d The third is the \u201creality of rule,\u201d meaning \u201cthe actual exercise of royal authority\u201d for \u201cthere cannot be an actual kingdom apart from the active exercise of that authority.\u201d Pentecost\u2019s summary is that the biblical concept of kingdom includes \u201cthe right to rule, a realm in which ruling authority is exercised, and the reality of that authority actually being exercised.\u201d In relationship to the kingdom of God, there are \u201ctwo aspects of the kingdom of God: the eternal aspect as well as the temporal aspect.\u201d The relationship of the two aspects is that the temporal is an \u201cearthly manifestation of the universal sovereignty of God\u201d and thus the temporal is \u201ca realm in which God rules in the affairs of men so that the kingdom is conceived as being both spiritual and material.\u201d
\nRenald E. Showers, after citing 1 Chronicles 29:11\u201312, showing that the concept of the Kingdom of God is derived from God\u2019s sovereignty, states:<\/p>\n
In this expression David declared at least three significant things concerning God. First, God has sovereign power or authority to rule. Second, He has a realm of subjects (all that is in the heavenly and earthly realms) over which to exercise His sovereign rule. Third, He actually exercises His sovereign rule over that realm. All three of these things are essential in order to have a kingdom.<\/p>\n
The Scriptures reveal much about God\u2019s kingdom program and sometimes statements about the kingdom appear contradictory. Showers points out three such areas. First, there is \u201ca distinction of time\u201d since there are passages which speak of the kingdom as being both present and future. Second, there is \u201ca distinction of scope\u201d since the Bible speaks of the kingdom being both \u201cuniversal in scope\u201d and \u201cearthly in scope.\u201d Third, there is a distinction in \u201cadministration\u201d for sometimes the Scriptures present \u201cGod\u2019s rule administered directly by Him over any or all parts of the universe\u201d while others present \u201cGod\u2019s rule administered indirectly through a human mediator just over the earth.\u201d Showers then gives the following summary:<\/p>\n
There are, then, three significant distinctions in the biblical Kingdom of God concept: the distinction of time (the Kingdom of God has been in existence for a long time, but it also has not yet started); the distinction of scope (the Kingdom of God is universal in scope, and yet it is just earthly in scope); and the distinction of administration (the Kingdom of God is the rule of God administered directly by Him over any or all parts of the universe, but it also is the rule of God administered indirectly through a human mediator just over the earth).<\/p>\n
However, all such seeming contradictions disappear once it is clearly realized that there are five facets to the kingdom program.<\/p>\n
a. The Universal Kingdom or the Eternal Kingdom<\/p>\n
The first facet of the kingdom program is called the Universal Kingdom or the Eternal Kingdom. This facet refers to God\u2019s rule in providence, in sovereignty, in that God is always in control. Nothing ever happens outside of God\u2019s will. What happens might be because of God\u2019s directive or decretive will or it might be because of God\u2019s permissive will. The point is, God is always in control. The reason for the two names is to emphasize two different aspects of this facet of the kingdom. The term eternal emphasizes the timeless aspect, the fact that God is always in control; He is eternally in control. The term universal emphasizes the sphere and the scope that no matter where things exist, everything is within the sovereign will and control of God. This includes the angelic realm. Pentecost gives four characteristics of this facet of the Kingdom of God: timeless, universal, providential, and miraculous. This first facet of God\u2019s kingdom program emphasizes His eternal, sovereign rule everywhere over His entire creation. This facet is spoken of in 1 Chronicles 29:11\u201312; Psalm 10:16; 29:10; 74:12; 90:1\u20136; 93:1\u20135; 103:19\u201322; 145:1\u201321; 148:8; Proverbs 21:11; Jeremiah 10:10; Lamentations 5:19; Daniel 4:17, 25, 32; 6:27; Acts 17:24; et al. This is the kingdom that the believer enters upon death (1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Tim. 4:18). The dispensations are the outworking of this kingdom in human history.<\/p>\n
b. The Spiritual Kingdom<\/p>\n
The second facet of God\u2019s kingdom program is called the Spiritual Kingdom. The Spiritual Kingdom is composed of all who have experienced the new birth in all times by the Holy Spirit. From Adam until our day and as long as men continue to be born on this earth there will be the existence of the Spiritual Kingdom. Every individual since Adam onward who has been born again by faith through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is a member of this kingdom. This is the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke of to Nicodemus when He said that unless one is born again he cannot see, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. This is God\u2019s rule in the heart of the believer. For some Covenant Amillennialists, this is the totality of God\u2019s kingdom program on earth, but for Dispensationalists it is only one facet of it. Dispensationalists do not deny the fact of God\u2019s rule in the hearts of the saints. They simply refuse to force every Scripture on the Kingdom of God into this one facet when it simply does not fit. This facet is found in Matthew 6:33; 19:16 with 23\u201324; John 3:3\u20135; Acts 8:12; 20:25; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 1:13\u201314; 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:12, et al. In this present age, from Acts two until the Rapture, the spiritual kingdom and the Church are synonymous. However, the spiritual kingdom was in existence before the Church began and will continue to exist after the Church is removed in the Rapture.<\/p>\n
c. The Theocratic Kingdom<\/p>\n
The third facet of God\u2019s kingdom program is called the Theocratic Kingdom. This facet refers to God\u2019s rule by means of and through a theocracy over one nation: Israel. The Theocratic Kingdom was God\u2019s rule over Israel. The Theocratic Kingdom was established by Moses. With the giving of the law the foundations of Israel as a Theocratic Kingdom were laid. The Theocratic Kingdom underwent two aspects in its history. First came the mediatorial form, meaning that God ruled through mediators. From Moses until Samuel God ruled by means of mediators. These mediators were Moses, Joshua, and then the Judges, of which Samuel was the last. The second aspect was the monarchial form in that God ruled through monarchs from Saul, the first king of Israel, until Zedekiah, the last king. Samuel marked the transition for he was not only the last Judge, he also anointed the first two kings: Saul and David. David, in turn, began a dynasty which continued to occupy the throne until Zedekiah. It is during the latter stages of the monarchial form of the Theocratic Kingdom that the kingdom went into a decline in quality. With the decline, the prophets began announcing a future form, a better form of God\u2019s kingdom program which would be the Messianic Kingdom. Finally, the Theocratic Kingdom came to an end with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. With Babylon, the Theocratic Kingdom came to an end and the Times of the Gentiles began, which has continued until this day. Old Testament history from Exodus 19 to 2 Chronicles 36 is a history of the Theocratic Kingdom.<\/p>\n
d. The Messianic Kingdom or the Millennial Kingdom<\/p>\n
The fourth facet of God\u2019s kingdom program is also given two names: the Messianic Kingdom or the Millennial Kingdom. The name, Messianic Kingdom, emphasizes that this kingdom will be ruled directly by the Messiah Himself. The name Millennial Kingdom emphasizes how long this kingdom will last: one thousand years. The form of the Messianic or Millennial Kingdom is that of an earthly literal kingdom which Jesus will rule from the Throne of David. It is rooted in the Davidic Covenant. When God made a covenant with David He promised that David would have an eternal house, an eternal kingdom, an eternal throne and an eternal descendent. It is this fourth facet of the kingdom program, the Messianic Kingdom, that was a major area of Old Testament prophecy. This was the kingdom proclaimed as being at hand by John the Baptist. This was the kingdom Jesus offered to the Jewish people. It is this kingdom that was rejected. As a result of the rejection of the Messianic Kingdom, the offer was rescinded or \u201ctaken away\u201d from that generation and from a human perspective the Messianic Kingdom was \u201cpostponed\u201d and not to be set up at this time. From the divine perspective, this rejection was part of God\u2019s plan and the means by which the Messiah would die to provide the atonement and by which the gospel would extend to the Gentiles (Isa. 49:1\u201313). Instead, the Messianic Kingdom will be reoffered to the Jewish generation of the Tribulation, which will accept it. More will be said about this facet under Israel Future. For now, the fifth facet of God\u2019s Kingdom Program would go into effect.<\/p>\n
e. The Mystery Kingdom<\/p>\n
The fifth facet of the kingdom program is the Mystery Kingdom. The name is derived from Matthew 13 where, following the rejection of His Messiahship, Jesus introduced this facet of God\u2019s kingdom program by means of the mysteries of the kingdom. Paul defines what a divine mystery is in Ephesians 3:3\u20135, 9 and Colossians 1:26\u201327. A New Testament mystery is a divine truth which was not revealed in the Old Testament, but is revealed in the New. In Paul\u2019s words, in the Old Testament it was not made known unto the sons of men because it hath been hid in God and hath been hid for ages and generations. In New Testament times, it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in order to make all men see what is \u2026 the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God and so it has now been manifested to his saints. The Mystery Kingdom is the one facet of the kingdom program which was not revealed in the Old Testament.
\nBecause of the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus, instead of the Messianic Kingdom, the fifth facet of the kingdom program, the Mystery Kingdom, is to be initiated. The parables of Matthew 13 describe the mystery form of the kingdom program. The Mystery Kingdom covers the age between the two comings of the Messiah, between the first and second coming. More specifically, it begins with the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus in Matthew 12\u201313 and continues until the acceptance of the Messiahship of Jesus by Israel just before the second coming. Perhaps the best single word to define the Mystery Kingdom is the term \u201cchristendom.\u201d It describes conditions on this earth while the King is absent from the earth and is in heaven. These mysteries of the kingdom relate truths to the eternal purpose of God in relationship to His eternal kingdom program.
\nThe nine parables of Matthew 13:1\u201353 (including the parallel accounts in Mark 4:1\u201334 and Luke 8:4\u201318), describe the outworking of the Mystery Kingdom in the present age. The first parable (Matt. 13:3\u20139, 19\u201323), the Parable of the Sower, teaches that the Mystery Kingdom Age will be characterized by the sowing of the gospel seed while receiving opposition from the world, the flesh and the devil, and marked by different responses to the seed sown. The understanding of the first parable is the key to understanding the subsequent parables (Mark 4:13) and, therefore, the interpretation is detailed by Jesus Himself. The second parable (Mark 4:26\u201329), the Parable of the Seed Growing of Itself, teaches that the seed sown in the first parable will spring to life of its own accord; it has an inner energy so that it will inexplicably regenerate and produce eternal life in the believer. The third parable (Matt. 13:24\u201330, 36\u201343), the Parable of the Tares, teaches that the true sowing of the first parable will be imitated by a false countersowing and so there will be a side-by-side development as a result of the two sowings. Only the judgment at the end of the Mystery Kingdom Age will separate the two with the good brought into the Messianic Kingdom and the bad excluded. This is the same as the judgment of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31\u201346. The fourth parable (Matt. 13:31\u201332), the Parable of the Mustard Seed, teaches that the Mystery Kingdom will assume huge outer proportions; it will have an abnormal external growth until it becomes a monstrosity which in turn becomes a resting place for birds. According to the first parable, the birds represent agents of Satan and, therefore, a negative element. Within the umbrella of Christendom will include all types of groups, such as cultic groups which use Christ\u2019s name, but deny His deity. The fifth parable (Matt. 13:33), the Parable of the Leaven, teaches that the Mystery Kingdom will be marked by inward doctrinal corruption. Frequently, a woman used symbolically is a symbol of a false religious system resulting in spiritual fornication (Rev. 2:20; 17:1\u201318). Whenever the word leaven is used symbolically, it is always a symbol of sin (1 Cor. 5:6\u20138) and frequently the specific sin of false doctrine (Matt. 16:6, 11\u201312). The three measures of meal in which the leaven is hidden points to the fact that Christendom develops into three main divisions: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. All three, to a greater or lesser degree, will have false doctrine. The sixth parable (Matt. 12:44), the Parable of the Treasure, is an Old Testament symbol of Israel (Exod. 19:5; Deut. 14:2; Psalm 135:4). This teaches that in spite of the two previous problems, the Lord will gain a remnant from Israel and there will be Jews who will come to saving faith. The seventh parable (Matt. 13:45\u201346) is the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price. While there is no clear statement what the pearl represents, the implication is that it represents the Gentiles for two reasons. First, it would provide the corollary contrast with the Jews of the previous parable for the Mystery Kingdom includes both Jews and Gentiles. Second, the origin of the pearl is the sea, which is a common symbol of the Gentile world (Dan. 7:2\u20133; Rev. 17:1, 15). This means that many Gentiles will also come to saving faith. The eighth parable (Matt. 13:47\u201350), the Parable of the Net, teaches that the Mystery Kingdom Age will end with the judgment of the Gentiles, as symbolized by the sea, with the righteous brought into the Messianic Kingdom while the unrighteous will be excluded. This judgment is detailed later in Matthew 25:31\u201346. The ninth parable (Matt. 13:51\u201352), the Parable of the Householder, teaches that some aspects of the Mystery Kingdom have similarities with the other facets of God\u2019s Kingdom Program, while other aspects are new and never found before.
\nThe Mystery Kingdom must be kept distinct from the other facets. First, the Mystery Kingdom is not the same as the Eternal Kingdom because the Mystery Kingdom is limited in time between the first and second coming or, more specifically, from the Jewish rejection of the Messiah until the Jewish acceptance of the Messiah. Second, it is not the same as the Theocratic Kingdom because it is not limited to one nation, the nation of Israel, but involves both Jews and Gentiles. Third, it is not the same as the Spiritual Kingdom because the Spiritual Kingdom comprises only believers, whereas the Mystery Kingdom includes both believers and unbelievers. Fourth, it is not the same as the Messianic Kingdom because the Messianic Kingdom was not a mystery; it was the subject of much revelation in the pages of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Messiah is not ruling this kingdom physically and visibly on earth. Fifth, the Mystery Kingdom is not the same as the Church. The Church is included within the scope of the Mystery Kingdom, but the Mystery Kingdom is much wider than the Church itself. \u201cChristendom\u201d is the best single term to describe what the Mystery Kingdom is. Since the time span of the Mystery Kingdom is from the rejection of the King until the acceptance of the King in the closing days of the Great Tribulation, obviously the Mystery Kingdom includes the Church Age from Acts two until the Rapture. It includes the period of time between Matthew 13 and Acts two. It also includes the Tribulation.<\/p>\n
2. The Rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus and its Results and Consequences<\/p>\n
Closely connected with God\u2019s kingdom program is the first coming of the Messiah. Both John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1\u20132) and Jesus (Mat. 4:17) came proclaiming that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Neither John nor Jesus, nor the particular gospel writers recording these events, tried to define the nature of this kingdom, obviously expecting the audience to understand what they meant by that term; and well they might since Jewish audiences had common knowledge of the Old Testament and understood the nature of the Messianic Kingdom. Even Covenant Theologians of all stripes admit that the common Jewish understanding of the kingdom in first century Israel was that of a literal earthly kingdom centered in Jerusalem and ruled by the Messiah. The obvious origin of such a view was the literal understanding of the Old Testament prophets. If either John or Jesus meant something totally different, which all Covenant Theologians insist on, including Covenant Premillennialists, then why did neither one explain such a distinction from the beginning? The very fact that they did not shows that the common Jewish understanding of the coming kingdom was a correct one.<\/p>\n
Suddenly in Matthew 3 John the baptizer, the Lord\u2019s forerunner, appears on the scene. His message was, \u201cRepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u201d What does the word kingdom mean here? It certainly cannot be some spiritual kingdom in the hearts of people. That kingdom was always present (cf. Ps. 37:31). Furthermore, the fact that John never explained what the term meant when the Jews clearly expected an earthly kingdom would imply that he was expecting the same type of kingdom.<\/p>\n
However, the common Jewish understanding that \u201call Israel has a share in the age to come\u201d was an incorrect one and so both John and Jesus proclaimed that the need to repent for righteousness was the means of entering the kingdom. Furthermore, to see the Messianic Kingdom established in their day required Israel\u2019s acceptance of Jesus as the Messianic King.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe gospel of the kingdom\u201d proclaimed by Christ in Matthew 9:35 must be the same as that preached by Him in 4:23. It was the good news of the nearness of the kingdom and freedom of access by repentance. The kingdom was proximate in two senses. First, the Messiah was here on earth, and second, the kingdom\u2019s coming was contingent on Israel\u2019s response to her Messiah.<\/p>\n
When He was rejected, a key change took place in the kingdom program. Toussaint has stated the dispensational viewpoint quite well:<\/p>\n
Very often the dispensationalist school of interpretation will refer to \u201cthe offer of the kingdom\u201d to Israel. By this is meant the contingency of the coming of the kingdom to Israel in the first century based on Israel\u2019s acceptance of Jesus as its Messiah. This concept is clearly found in the New Testament. For instance, Peter openly states the coming of the Messiah rests on Israel\u2019s repentance (Acts 3:19\u201321). The Lord Himself said that John the Baptist could have been the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy of Malachi 4:5\u20136 if Israel had repented (Matt. 11:14).\u2026<\/p>\n
However, dispensationalists may want to clarify their terminology. The New Testament does teach the contingency of the coming of the kingdom premised on the response of the Jews. But every Israelite wanted the kingdom to come. To say Christ offered the kingdom to Israel is true, but it leaves the impression the Jews did not want the kingdom to come. It would be far better to say Jesus offered Himself as Israel\u2019s Messiah and the coming of the kingdom was contingent on their acceptance or rejection of Him.<\/p>\n
The King was rejected and, along with Him, the Messianic Kingdom. This point, so important to Israelology, needs to be expanded.<\/p>\n
a. Matthew 12:22\u201345<\/p>\n
In the layout of the Gospel of Matthew, Christ began His ministry in chapter four. From chapter four until chapter 12, Jesus went around Israel proclaiming His Messiahship and preaching the gospel of the kingdom. He performed many miracles; the purpose of all His miracles between chapters 4\u201312 were to serve as signs to Israel in order to authenticate His person (that He is the Messiah) and His message (the gospel of the kingdom). If they would accept Him, He would establish the Messianic Kingdom of the Old Testament prophets. These miracles were to serve as signs to the nation of Israel to get them to come to a decision about Him. However, the purpose of His miracles and His whole ministry underwent a radical change in chapter 12. The rejection of His Messiahship occurred in Matthew 12:22\u201337.
\nAmong the many miracles that Jesus performed was the casting out of demons and, in verse 22, Christ cast out a dumb demon. This caused the people to ask the question, \u201cCan Jesus really be the Messiah?\u201d (v. 23) This was one of the key purposes of this miracle, to get them to see that He indeed was the Son of David. However, the people were not willing to come to a decision by themselves, but were looking to their religious leaders, the Pharisees, to reach a verdict for them. They were waiting for the Pharisees to conclude either that He was the Messiah or that He was not the Messiah. These were the only two options the Pharisees had: to accept Him or to reject Him. If they were to conclude that He was not the Messiah, the Pharisees would also have to be able to explain how Jesus was able to perform His many unique miracles. In verse 24, the Pharisees made their choice. They refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah because He did not fit the Pharisaic mold of what Messiah was supposed to say and do (Luke 7:30\u201335). Their alternative explanation as to how He was able to perform His miracles was to declare that Jesus Himself was demon possessed, not by a common demon but by the prince of demons, Beelzebub. This name was a combination of two Hebrew words which mean \u201cthe lord of the flies.\u201d This then became the basis of the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus: He is not the Messiah on the grounds of being demon possessed. In verses 25\u201329, Christ responded by stating that this could not be true because it would mean a division in Satan\u2019s kingdom (vv. 25\u201326); they themselves long recognized that the gift of exorcism is a gift of the spirit and so this accusation makes them inconsistent with their own theology (v. 27); this miracle actually authenticates the claims and message of Jesus (v. 28); and, it shows that Jesus is stronger than Satan, not subservient to Satan (v. 29).
\nIn verses 30\u201337, He pronounced a judgment on the Jewish generation of that day. That generation had committed the unpardonable sin: the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin was not an individual sin but a national sin. It was committed by that generation of Israel in Jesus\u2019 day and cannot be applied to subsequent Jewish generations. The content and definition of the unpardonable sin is the national rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus by Israel while He was physically present on the basis that He was demon possessed. This sin was unpardonable, and judgment was set. The judgment came in the year A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the world-wide dispersion of the Jewish people. It was a national sin committed by the generation of Jesus\u2019 day, and for that generation the sin was unpardonable. From this point on a special emphasis is placed on this generation in the gospels, for it was guilty of a very unique sin. At this point, His offer of the Messianic Kingdom was rescinded. It will not now be established in their day because of the unpardonableness of that sin.
\nThere are four ramifications of the unpardonable sin. First, this is a national sin and not an individual one. Even for individual members of that generation it was possible to escape the judgment for the unpardonable sin by repenting (changing their mind about Jesus). No individual could commit this sin today for two reasons: first, it was not an individual sin to begin with; and, second, all sins are forgivable to that individual who will come to God through Jesus the Messiah. But for the nation as a nation, it was unpardonable. The second ramification is that it was a sin limited to the generation to whom Messiah came. From this point on, there is a special emphasis in the gospels on the guilt of this generation. The third ramification is that this is not a sin that any nation can commit today because the Messiah is not now physically and visibly present with any nation, offering Himself as that nation\u2019s Messiah. This was unique to His relationship to Israel and to no other. The fourth ramification is that the commitment of the unpardonable sin by that generation for that generation meant two things. First, the offer of the kingdom was rescinded and they have lost out on seeing the kingdom established in their day. Instead, it will be reoffered to a later Jewish generation that will accept it, the Jewish generation of the Great Tribulation detailed in Matthew 24\u201325. Second, it meant that that generation was under a special divine judgment, the physical judgment of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple fulfilled in A.D. 70.
\nIn verses 38\u201340, Jesus announced His new policy regarding miracles:<\/p>\n
Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them. An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
The Pharisees tried to retake the offensive by demanding yet another sign (v. 38), as if Jesus had not done enough to authenticate His Messiahship. By this time, numerous signs were performed and still they rejected Him and so, in verses 39\u201340, there is a change of policy regarding His signs. From now on there would be no more signs for the nation except one. While Jesus continued to perform miracles after this event, the purpose of His miracles changed. No longer were they for the purpose of authenticating His person and His message to the nation in order to get the nation to come to a decision. That decision had now been irrevocably made. Rather, His miracles would be for the purpose of training the twelve disciples for the new type of ministry they will need to conduct as a result of the rejection of His Messiahship. It is the ministry the apostles performed in the Book of Acts. For the nation there would be no sign but one: the sign of Jonah, which is the sign of resurrection. It is a sign that would come to Israel on three occasions: first, at the resurrection of Lazarus; second, at Jesus\u2019 own resurrection; and, third, at the resurrection of the Two Witnesses in the Tribulation. The first two were rejected, but the third will be accepted.
\nIn verses 41\u201345 Jesus concluded with more words of judgment for that generation. It should be noted how often the phrase this generation is emphasized:<\/p>\n
The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here. But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and findeth it not. Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation. (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
In verse 41, He compared them with Nineveh and explained why Nineveh will stand in judgment of that generation. The same is true with the Queen of Sheba (v. 42). The people in both of these verses were Gentiles. With much less revelation than Israel had, they responded, even without miracles, but that generation did not. In verses 43\u201345 the words of judgment conclude with a story about a demon to illustrate what the final outcome of that generation would be. Jesus related the account of a demon who left on his own volition a man whom he had possessed. When he was unable to find a new body to indwell and control, he returned to his original abode. Although he found it swept and garnished, he also found it still empty. The individual never took the opportunity to fill his life with the Holy Spirit; nor had another demon entered him. The demon re-entered the man he originally possessed and then invited seven other demons to join him. The outcome was that the last state of that man had become worse than the first. Originally, he was possessed by only one demon. He had the opportunity after the demon left to fill his life with the Spirit of God and failed to do so. The last state of that man was worse because now he was possessed by eight demons. The point of this story is often missed. Christ closed the story with the point that what was true of the man was also true of that particular evil generation. When that generation began, it began with the preaching of John the Baptist. John\u2019s ministry was essentially a clean-up ministry, for he was to prepare the people for the reception of the Messiah. By means of the preaching of John, that generation was swept and garnished. Now that Messiah had come, they rejected Him on the basis of demon possession. That generation, swept and garnished, now remained empty on account of the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus. Because it remained empty, the last state of that generation was to be worse than the first.
\nWhen that generation began, it was under Roman domination and had to pay annual tribute to Rome. Nevertheless, it had a national entity. It had a form of government in the Sanhedrin. Jerusalem stood in all its Herodian glory, and the religious worship system in the Temple remained intact. Later, as a result of the rejection and the judgment, in the year A.D. 70, the national entity of Israel ceased to exist. In place of bondage, they were dispersed by the Roman armies. The Temple, the center of Judaism, was completely destroyed so that not one stone stood upon another. Eventually the Jews were dispersed all over the world. Indeed, the last state of that generation became worse than the first. They went from bondage to world-wide dispersion.
\nEven after the events of Matthew 12, the Pharisees approached Christ demanding a sign to authenticate His person and His message (Matt. 16:1\u20134). But again Christ refused to give them any more signs and promised them only the sign of Jonah, which is the sign of resurrection.<\/p>\n
b. John 11:1\u201357<\/p>\n
The resurrection of Lazarus recorded in John 11:1\u201344 is the presentation of the first sign of Jonah. Jesus raised others from the dead, yet all of the other resurrections are covered in just a few verses. Here John used forty-four verses to give great detail about the resurrection of Lazarus. Why? This is the sign of Jonah that Jesus had promised. In verse 42, Jesus made it very clear for whom Lazarus was raised, namely the Jewish multitudes:<\/p>\n
And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the multitude that standeth around I said it, that they may believe that thou didst send me.<\/p>\n
Then in verses 45\u201346 there is the response of the Jews:<\/p>\n
Many therefore of the Jews, who came to Mary and beheld that which he did, believed on him. But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told them the things which Jesus had done.<\/p>\n
Many Jews responded correctly to this first sign of Jonah and believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be, but the others still wanted some kind of word or decision from their leaders, and so they reported to the Pharisees what Jesus had done. Since this was the sign Christ had promised them, they responded to the challenge in verses 47\u201350 and 53:<\/p>\n
The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation. But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.\u2026 So from that day forth they took counsel that they might put him to death.<\/p>\n
The Sanhedrin gathered together to make a decision as to how to respond to the first sign of Jonah given in the resurrection of Lazarus and responded in keeping with their original verdict of Matthew 12. They issued a decree of rejection and sought an opportunity to put Jesus to death. The rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus was now complete. Going beyond the rejection of His Messiahship, they now condemned Him to death.
\nVerses 54\u201357 give the results of the Sanhedrin verdict. First, Chris went into hiding for a short period of time because the hour of His death was not yet come (v. 54). Second, the people still raised questions concerning His person, a logical thing for them to have done in light of the resurrection of Lazarus (vv. 55\u201356). Third, the Sanhedrin\u2019s verdict filtered down to the masses in verse 57:<\/p>\n
Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given commandment, that, if any man knew where he was, he should show it, that they might take him.<\/p>\n
They sought an opportunity to put Him to death. The rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus that occurred in Matthew 12 culminated in John 11 with a decree of death hanging over the person of Jesus. The first sign of Jonah, the resurrection of Lazarus, was officially rejected by the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\n
c. Luke 19:41\u201344<\/p>\n
Further light is shed on the nature of the unpardonable sin in the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus in Luke 19:41\u201344. This passage is in the context of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. Thousands of Jews cried, Hosanna, blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord, which had clear messianic overtones, based upon the Messianic context of Psalm 118:26. The Jewish masses proclaimed His Messiahship as He approached Jerusalem. However, the Jewish leaders had already committed the unpardonable sin. Judgment had already been set upon that generation. Since the sin was unforgivable, there was no way of alleviating that judgment. In spite of the masses proclaiming Him to be the Messiah, Jesus pronounced words of judgment upon the City of Jerusalem:<\/p>\n
And when he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, if thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.<\/p>\n
Forty years later, the prophecy was literally fulfilled.<\/p>\n
d. Matthew 23:1\u201336<\/p>\n
Another passage of Scripture dealing with the judgment of that generation is Matthew 23:1\u201336. In this chapter, Jesus closed His public ministry. The entire chapter is devoted to a denunciation and condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees, the leadership of Israel in that day. A total of seven woes are pronounced against them for various sins, but they form a circle in that the first and seventh woes deal with the same sin. The first woe is in verse 13:<\/p>\n
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter.<\/p>\n
The Pharisees are held accountable not only for their rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus, but also for leading the nation to the same rejection as well. This is an important factor to note for the later understanding of what the basis of the second coming will be. The seventh woe is in verses 29\u201336:<\/p>\n
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the sepulchers of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell? Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
These verses emphasize the severity of the judgment on that generation. The judgment is primarily upon the leaders, but also upon the nation whom the leaders led in the rejection of His Messiahship. When Jesus said from the blood of Abel \u2026 to the blood of Zechariah \u2026, He stated that they were not only to be held accountable for the rejection of His Messiahship, but also to be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets of the Old Testament. In the Jewish order of the books of the Old Testament, which is what Jesus used, the first book of the Bible is Genesis, where Abel is mentioned. The last book is II Chronicles, where Zechariah is mentioned. Jesus declared that they were guilty of all the blood from Genesis to II Chronicles; a figure of speech meaning the whole body of revealed written truth, much as people today would say from Genesis to Revelation. This is something unique for that generation, as declared in verse 36: Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation. It is the judgment for the unpardonable sin.
\nThe point is this: the Messiahship of Jesus was rejected by the Jewish leadership and the Jewish leadership led the nation to the rejection of that Messiahship. This will have ramifications for Israel Future and the issue of the basis of the second coming.<\/p>\n
e. The Second Sign of Jonah<\/p>\n
A few days after the above words were spoken, the second sign of Jonah was given in the resurrection of Jesus. This second sign of Jonah was rejected in the first seven chapters of the Book of Acts. The stoning of Stephen in Acts seven by the Sanhedrin marked the official rejection of the second sign of Jonah. That is why only as of chapter eight does the Gospel for the first time go out to the non-Jewish world.<\/p>\n
f. The Results and Consequences of the Rejection<\/p>\n
When Jesus was rejected, the offer of the Messianic Kingdom was rescinded and the Mystery Kingdom replaced it. It is this concept that is so often ridiculed by Covenant Theologians and is the basis of their claim that Dispensationalism minimizes the cross and makes it an afterthought in the plan of God. This is far from the truth. Dispensationalism strongly believes that the death of Christ was inevitable, for it was absolutely necessary for the atonement. Christ would have died even if Israel had accepted Him. The nation would have proclaimed Jesus as their King, which would have been viewed by Rome as a rebellion against Caesar. Jesus would then have been arrested, tried, and crucified for treason against Rome, as was the case anyway. Three days later, following His resurrection, He would have dispensed with Rome and set up the Messianic Kingdom. His death would have occurred regardless of what Israel did. However, it was already known, on the basis of Old Testament prophecy, that Israel would reject the Messiahship of Jesus. The simple fact is that Israel could not reject that which was not offered. And that which was offered had to be more than Ladd\u2019s spiritual kingdom of God\u2019s rule in their hearts for many Jews did accept Jesus as the Messiah and did have God\u2019s rule in their hearts. The Spiritual Kingdom is offered to individuals, not nations, and received by individuals by means of faith. What was offered to the nation as a nation had to be much more tangible than the intangible Spiritual Kingdom. What was offered was the Messianic Kingdom. In the plan of God, it was by means of the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus that the death of the Messiah was accomplished. As every good Calvinist should know (and all Covenant Theologians are Calvinists), God ordains both the ends and the means.
\nAfter the rejection in Matthew 12, because of the nature of the unpardonable sin, the ministry of Jesus changed radically in four areas. The first change was the purpose of His miracles in that they were no longer for the purpose of serving as signs of His Messiahship to Israel, but were for the purpose of training the apostles for their ministry in the Book of Acts (Matt. 16:1\u20134).
\nThe second change concerned the people for whom He performed these miracles. Until the events of Matthew 12, Jesus performed miracles for the benefit of the masses without requiring them to have faith first. After Matthew 12, he performed miracles only in response to needs of individuals and began requiring them to have faith first. Furthermore, before Matthew 12, those He healed were free to proclaim what had been done for them; but after Matthew 12, Jesus initiated a policy of silence and forbade those He healed to tell anyone about it (Mark 7:36; Luke 8:56; et al.)
\nThe third change concerned the message that Jesus and the apostles would now proclaim. Until Matthew 12 both He and they went throughout the land of Israel proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah. In Matthew 10 the apostles were sent out two by two to do just that. After Matthew 12, the apostles were also ordered to follow the new policy of silence, and they were forbidden to tell anyone that Jesus was the Messiah. In Matthew 16, after Peter made his famous confession, Thou art the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the living God, Jesus ordered Peter to tell no one that He was the Messiah (Matt. 16:20), They were to follow the policy of silence (Matt. 17:9) until it was rescinded with the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18\u201320).
\nThe fourth change concerned His teaching method. Until Matthew 12, whenever Jesus taught the masses, He did so in terms that they could and did understand. One example is the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5\u20137. Matthew points out at the end that not only did the people understand what He was saying, but also where He differed from the Scribes and the Pharisees. In Matthew 13, Jesus began teaching with a new method, the parabolic method, the purpose of which was to hide the truth from the masses. The very act of teaching in parables was a sign of judgment against them. The first series of parables Jesus taught was on the Mystery Kingdom, the facet of God\u2019s kingdom program which was inaugurated as a result of the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus and rescinding of the offer of the Messianic Kingdom. To clearly comprehend what is happening in Matthew 13, one must understand the relationship between Matthew 12 and 13. Matthew 12 records the national rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus. Jesus was officially rejected by the leadership of Israel. By so doing, they were guilty of the unpardonable sin. From that point on they were under the judgment of A.D., 70, the year in which Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. In Matthew 13, Jesus taught a series of parables. These parables were spoken on the very same day as the rejection by the nation of the Messiahship of Jesus occurred (Matt. 13:1\u20133). On that same day the parabolic method of teaching began as a result of the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus.
\nMatthew 13:10\u201318 states the purpose of these parables. Verse ten records:<\/p>\n
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?<\/p>\n
The question on the part of His disciples indicates that this was the beginning of the parabolic method of teaching. As a result of the rejection in Matthew 12, in Matthew 13 Jesus began teaching the Jewish masses in parables. This, of course, surprised the disciples because they themselves knew that Jesus, up until that point, had taught them clearly. Now they wanted to know why He had begun speaking to them in parables. Again, the question clearly indicated that this was the beginning of His parabolic method of teaching. In verses 11\u201314 Jesus said there were three reasons for the parabolic method of teaching:<\/p>\n
And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah.<\/p>\n
There are three main reasons for His parabolic method of teaching. First, for his disciples, the parabolic method of teaching would illustrate the truth. The second purpose, however, was to hide the truth from the masses. Since the nation had rejected His Messiahship, it had therefore rejected the light they had. Since the nation had rejected the light they had, no more light would be given. Instead of teaching them clearly and distinctly in terms they could and did understand as He had heretofore, from this point He taught them only in terms of parables so they could not and would not understand. The third reason was to fulfill prophecy. Jesus quoted Isaiah 6:9\u201310 which prophesied that the Messiah would speak to the Jewish people in such a way that they would not be able to understand. These are the three purposes of His parabolic method of teaching.
\nLater, Matthew 13:34\u201335 states:<\/p>\n
All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.<\/p>\n
These verses reemphasize that Jesus spoke to the multitudes only in parables and without a parable He said nothing to them. This was not true before the rejection of Matthew 12, but it is very true after the rejection. Without a parable He spoke nothing to them. This restates the second purpose of His parabolic method of teaching and that was to hide the truth from the masses. In verse 35 He again pointed out that this was fulfillment of prophecy and this time He quoted Psalm 78:2. This restated the third purpose of the parabolic method of teaching which was to fulfill Old Testament prophecy, and by the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy He proved the very Messiahship that had been rejected.
\nThe parallel account to this is found in Mark 4:33\u201334 where the same point is made:<\/p>\n
And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it; and without a parable spake he not unto them; but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things.<\/p>\n
Mark 4:34b adds that when Jesus was alone with His disciples He explained to them what the meaning of the parable was. This restated the first purpose of the parables in that they would illustrate the truth for the disciples. From Matthew 13 onward this was the method Jesus consistently used. Whenever He spoke to the masses He spoke only parabolically for the purpose of hiding the truth from the masses. On the other hand, when He was alone with His disciples, He explained and expounded the meanings of each one of these particular parables.
\nUnderstanding the various facets of God\u2019s kingdom program can help in understanding which facet was offered to Israel and rejected, and which facet temporarily took its place. All of these things will have ramifications as to the preconditions to the second coming and the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom to be discussed under Israel Future.<\/p>\n
3. The Unconditional Covenants<\/p>\n
Covenant Theologians of all three schools insist in a lesser or greater degree that the biblical covenants are now being fulfilled in the Church. Some believe that these covenants were made with the Church from the very beginning. Others admit that they were made with Israel, but have now been transferred to the Church. As for Israel, all that was promised either has already been fulfilled or has been forfeited through Jewish unbelief. Even Covenant Premillennialists, who do see a future for ethnic Israel, still insist that Israel is amalgamated into the Church.
\nDispensationalists, though very clear as to how the unconditional covenants work out in relationship to Israel Past and Israel Future, have been far less clear with Israel Present. Chafer, as cited in the previous chapter, took the view that the Jewish covenants are now in \u201cabeyance\u201d, and Pentecost failed to recognize the existence of the remnant today. No such view of the covenants is necessary or defensible. The fact is that all four unconditional covenants are not only still in effect, but also still operative at the present time. The Church does, indeed, have a relationship to these covenants, but it is not that described by Covenant Theology. Before explaining exactly how the Church does so relate, it is wiser to look at these covenants individually to see how they work out today.
\nFirst, however, a point of observation is in order. It must again be stressed that, although a covenant may be made at a specific point of time, It does not mean that all provisions of the covenant go immediately into effect. Some do, but some may not for centuries. The Abrahamic Covenant is a good example. Some of God\u2019s promises did go immediately into effect, such as providing for Abraham\u2019s physical needs in the land and his change of name. Others were fulfilled only later. For example, Abraham was promised a son through Sarah, but had to wait twenty-five years before that promise was fulfilled. Other provisions were fulfilled only later in Jewish history, such as the deliverance from Egypt which was also part of the covenant. Finally, other provisions are still future never having been fulfilled, such as Abraham\u2019s ownership of the land and Israel\u2019s settlement in all of the Promised Land. It is important to note that although a covenant is made, signed, and sealed at a certain point of history, this does not mean that all the promises or provisions go immediately info effect. It should come as no surprise that not all of the provisions of the unconditional Jewish covenants are presently being fulfilled to, in, or by Israel today. This is not necessary for the covenants to still be in force. Nor is this a valid reason to teach that the Church has taken over these covenants or that they are now being fulfilled to, in, or by the Church.
\nFinally, there is a strong correlation between God\u2019s Kingdom Program and the unconditional covenants \u201cfor God\u2019s kingdom program was the outworking of His eternal and unconditional covenants.\u201d<\/p>\n
a. The Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
The Abrahamic Covenant promised a seed, land, and blessings among its many provisions. The seed was to develop into a nation, and so it did at the foot of Mount Sinai. Today, Israel is a scattered nation but still a nation. Just as Israel remained distinct in Egypt, the Jewish people have remained distinct throughout the Church Age. No other nation that lost its national homeland and was dispersed for centuries survived as a distinct entity. On the contrary, where they scattered they intermarried and disappeared into a melting pot. Not so the Jews, whose distinctive history is easily traceable throughout the years of Jewish history. The fact that Jews have continued to survive as a people in spite of so many attempts to destroy them shows that this covenant has continued to operate.
\nAs for the land, within the confines of the Church Age there has been no real independent government in the land since A.D. 70. The land has been overrun many times and ruled by many people, but always ruled from somewhere else. It has been controlled by Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, and Britons. Even under Arab control, no independent Arab government was ever set up; it was ruled from somewhere else: Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, Amman, etc. Though renamed \u201cPalestine\u201d by Hadrian, there never was a Palestinian state with a Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag. The first time an independent government was set up in the land since A.D. 70 was in 1948 with the State of Israel. The history of the land also shows that the Abrahamic Covenant continues to be fulfilled with the people of Israel.
\nAs for the blessings, history shows that those who blessed the Jews were blessed just as those who cursed them were cursed. Furthermore, the spiritual blessings have now been extended to the Gentiles as will be shown later in this section.
\nThe seal of the Abrahamic Covenant was circumcision and this is still mandatory upon all Jews, both believers and unbelievers. However, does not the Book of Galatians argue against the practice of circumcision? Yes and no. Circumcision for Gentiles, circumcision on the basis of the Mosaic Law, and circumcision for justification or sanctification are all wrong. Galatians condemns circumcision as a means for justification. Except perhaps for health and medical reasons, there is no requirement for Gentile circumcision. Furthermore, Jewish believers who circumcise on the basis of the Law of Moses are also wrong, since the law ended with Christ. This same book clearly states that the Abrahamic Covenant is still very much in effect with all its features, and this includes circumcision (Gal. 3:15\u201318). Circumcision on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant is right and proper; it is still very much in effect for Jewish believers. Paul, who taught the Gentiles not to circumcise, did not do so with Jews; this is clear from Acts 21:17\u201326 and from Acts 16:1\u20133 when he had Timothy circumcised. It was not circumcision per se that was ruled out, but rather circumcision on the basis of the Mosaic Law. Since Jewish believers still fall under the physical and spiritual provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, they also fall under the rule of circumcision as a sign and seal of this same covenant. Dispensationalists have been inconsistent on this point insisting on the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant but then denying the continuity of circumcision. This has largely been due to a failure to distinguish circumcision under the Abrahamic Covenant and circumcision under the Law of Moses. A careful distinction between the two will clear up this confusion and make Dispensationalism more consistent when speaking of and about the Abrahamic Covenant.<\/p>\n
b. The Palestinian Covenant<\/p>\n
The Palestinian Covenant promised a final world-wide regathering following a world-wide dispersion. While the final regathering is still future, the world-wide scattering is a present fact and has been so since A.D. 70. Furthermore, it promised that the Jews would suffer persecution in the dispersion and the land would become desolate over the centuries. The fact that all these promises have and are being fulfilled shows that this covenant is still working itself out.
\nA key point of the Palestinian Covenant was to teach that while Israel\u2019s enjoyment of the land was based on obedience, her ownership or title deed to the land was not. The failure of all other occupiers of the land to set up an independent government again shows that this covenant continues to operate.
\nMany Covenant Theologians insist that God\u2019s promises to Israel concerning the land have already been fulfilled and use passages such as Joshua 11:23 as evidence:<\/p>\n
So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Jehovah spake unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land had rest from war.<\/p>\n
However, this verse, like all verses of Scripture, must be kept in context and must be viewed within the Book of Joshua as a whole. Keeping in mind that originally the Book of Joshua did not have chapter divisions, the verse simply states a fact which is then followed by exceptions to the fact. Joshua 11:23 is followed immediately by chapter 12 which lists the Canaanite kings killed by Israel. Joshua 13:1\u20136 shows that a great deal of territory did not fall into the hands of the Israelites and is a sizable exception to the statement of Joshua 11:23. Nor did much of this territory fall into Jewish hands in the immediate future following Joshua. Jerusalem remained under Jebusite control (Josh. 15:63) until David (2 Sam. 5:6\u20139), and the city of Gezer was held by the Canaanites (Josh. 16:10) until Solomon (1 Kings 9:16). The Tribe of Dan had to move because they could not take their territory from the Philistines. White David and Solomon extended Jewish control close to the borders of the Promised Land, it was not total since Phoenicia (Lebanon) retained its independence to the very end. Even if Phoenicia had fallen, it would not have fulfilled the covenant promises for with David and Solomon most of the non-Jewish territory, such as Syria, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, etc., was merely under military control and they had to pay tribute (1 Kings 4:21). This is hardly a fulfillment of a promise which concerned actual possession and settlement in the land and not merely military control. This did not happen under Joshua as the context of 11:23 clearly shows. The first chapter of Judges, recording events which took place after the death of Joshua (1:1), records how various tribes failed to take the land allotted to them (1:19, 21, 27, 29, 30, 31\u201332, 33, 34\u201336). Never in Old Testament history did Israel possess, dwell, and settle in all of the Promised Land. Nor did it ever happen in Jewish history since. However, the Palestinian Covenant guarantees that some day it will.<\/p>\n
c. The Davidic Covenant<\/p>\n
This covenant promised four eternal things: house, throne, kingdom, and descendant. The fact that the Messiah, the eternal descendant, is now seated at the right hand of God the Father, as David himself prophesied in Psalm 110:1, shows that this covenant is still functioning. In fulfillment of the Eternal Seed facet of the Davidic Covenant, Jesus is called the son of David (Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:32) and the Root of David (Rev. 5:5). True, Jesus is not now ruling from the Davidic throne over a kingdom of Israel, but again, not all provisions go immediately into effect. Many Covenant Theologians insist that the entire covenant has now been fulfilled and insist that the promise of the throne was filled when Jesus sat on His Father\u2019s throne, citing Revelation 3:21 as evidence:<\/p>\n
He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne.<\/p>\n
There is no question that Jesus is now sitting on the Throne of God the Father. However, the promise made in Luke 1:32 is:<\/p>\n
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.<\/p>\n
It is foolish to claim that the Throne of David and the Throne of God are the same unless Covenant Theologians wish to insist that David once sat on the Throne of God the Father!<\/p>\n
d. The New Covenant<\/p>\n
The major feature of this covenant was Israel\u2019s national salvation down to every individual Jew. This covenant was signed and sealed by the shedding of Messiah\u2019s blood. While this did and does result in the salvation of Jewish individuals, no national salvation of Israel has thus far taken place. Again, this is not grounds to teach that the national salvation promised is the national salvation of the Church, the \u201cspiritual Israel.\u201d As was seen with the previous three covenants, not all provisions go immediately into effect. The Church certainly has a relationship to this covenant, but not as the entity to or through which the covenant is fulfilled. Like the others, this is a Jewish covenant and it can only be fulfilled in a future national salvation of Israel. Its present outworking is that of individual salvation provided through Messiah\u2019s blood. The fact that today every believer is indwelled by the Holy Spirit is also due to the present outworking of the New Covenant.
\nAn additional provision of the New Covenant only revealed by the New Testament is the Law of Christ. Just as the Mosaic Covenant contained the Law of Moses, the New Covenant contains the Law of Christ (Rom. 8:2; Gal. 6:2). Like the Law of Moses, the Law of the Messiah has many individual commandments given either by Jesus directly or by the Apostles. Some commandments are the same as those of the Law of Moses. For example, nine of the famous Ten Commandments are also found in the Law of Christ. Some commandments are different than those of the Law of Moses. For example, there is no Sabbath law or dietary restrictions. Some are similar to those of the Law of Moses, but are intensified. For example, the Law of Moses decreed that one must love his neighbor as himself (Lev. 19:18). The Law of the Messiah decreed that one must love as the Messiah loved (John 15:12). Furthermore, there is a new motivation. The Law of Moses taught: do, in order to be blessed. The Law of Christ teaches: you are blessed; therefore, do. The present obligation to obey the Law of Christ is due to the present outworking of the New Covenant.<\/p>\n
e. The Church\u2019s Relationship to the Unconditional Covenants<\/p>\n
It is at this point that some confusion has arisen as to the Church\u2019s relationship to the New Covenant because, according to Jeremiah, the covenant is made not with the Church, but with Israel. Nevertheless, a number of Scriptures connect the New Covenant with the Church (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:14\u201320; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 7:22; 8:6\u201313; 9:15; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20).
\nThis is the point of confusion. Covenant Theologians try to solve the problem by a theology of replacement or transference. Dispensationalists, with their literal hermeneutics, are unable to do so; thus, some have tried to resolve the problem by the invention of two new covenants. The problem with this view is that there is no indication in Scripture that there are two covenants with the same name. Any mention of a new covenant would cause Jews to think only of the one in Jeremiah. Verses used by adherents of this view as speaking of the New Covenant for the Church still cite the Jeremiah passage which speaks of the New Covenant for Israel. A better solution, and quite consistent with Dispensationalism, is to remember that these covenants contained two types of promises: physical and spiritual. The physical promises were, and still are, limited to Israel and will be fulfilled only to, in, or by Israel. However, as early as Genesis 12:3, the first passage of the first covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, it was already promised that the spiritual blessings would extend to the Gentiles. Actually, the solution is not difficult since it is clearly explained in Ephesians 2:11\u201316 and 3:5\u20136:<\/p>\n
Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, haying slain the enmity thereby:<\/p>\n
\u2026 which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit: to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, \u2026<\/p>\n
The point of this passage is that God made four unconditional covenants with Israel: the Abrahamic, the Palestinian, the Davidic, and the New covenants. All of God\u2019s blessings, both physical and spiritual, are mediated by means of these four covenants. However, there was also a fifth covenant, the conditional Mosaic Covenant. This was the middle wall of partition. Essentially, it kept the Gentiles from enjoying the spiritual blessings of the four unconditional covenants. For a Gentile to receive the blessings of the unconditional covenants, he had to totally submit to the Mosaic Law, take upon himself the obligations of the law and, for all practical purposes, live as a son of Abraham. Only Gentiles as proselytes to Mosaic Judaism could enjoy the spiritual blessings. Gentiles as Gentiles were not able to enjoy the spiritual blessings of the Jewish covenants and hence were strangers from the Commonwealth of Israel. They did not receive any of the spiritual benefits contained in the covenants. However, when Christ died the Mosaic Law, the middle wall of partition, was broken down. Now Gentiles as Gentiles can by faith enjoy the spiritual blessings of the four unconditional covenants. That is why Gentiles today are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings; they are not taker-overs.
\nThe relationship of the Church to the New Covenant is the same as the Church\u2019s relationship to the Abrahamic, the Palestinian, and the Davidic covenants. The physical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, as amplified by the Palestinian and Davidic covenants, were promised exclusively to Israel. However, the blessing aspect amplified by the New Covenant was to include the Gentiles. The Church is enjoying the spiritual blessings of these covenants, not the material and physical benefits. The physical promises still belong to Israel and will be fulfilled exclusively with Israel, especially those involving the land. However, all spiritual benefits are now being shared by the Church. This is the Church\u2019s relationship to these four unconditional covenants between God and Israel.
\nThe blood of the Messiah is the basis of salvation in the New Covenant and this was shed at the cross. The blood of the Messiah ratified, signed, and sealed the New Covenant (Heb. 8:1\u201310:18). The provisions of the New Covenant cannot be fulfilled in, by, or through the Church, but have to be fulfilled in, by, and through Israel. It is true that the Covenant is not now being fulfilled with Israel, but this does not mean it is therefore being fulfilled with the Church. Again, not all provisions go immediately into effect. The Church is related to the New Covenant only insofar as receiving the spiritual benefits of the Covenant (salvation benefit), but the Church is not fulfilling it. The Church has become a partaker of Jewish spiritual blessings, but the Church is not a taker-over of the Jewish covenants. The Church partakes of the spiritual blessings and promises, but not the material or physical promises or blessings.<\/p>\n
f. The Gentile Obligation<\/p>\n
The fact that Gentile believers have become partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings places an obligation on Gentile believers, according to Romans 15:25\u201327:<\/p>\n
\u2026 but now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things.<\/p>\n
As Paul came close to ending his letter to the Romans he spelled out his immediate plans. In verse 25 he explained why he could not come to them immediately. While he had had a long-term desire to go to Rome (he expressed this in chapter one), his desire was subject to his duty, which was to collect an offering and to take it to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. This special offering was spoken of elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 16:1\u20134 and 2 Corinthians 8\u20139. In verse 26, Paul named the contributors and the recipients of the offering. The Gentiles of Macedonia and Achaia had given the money, which was specifically for the poor Jewish believers of the City of Jerusalem in the Land of Israel. In verse 27, Paul taught the Gentile indebtedness to the Jews. He clearly stated that Gentiles are debtors to the Jews and then gave the reason for this: Gentiles have become partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings. Earlier, in Romans 11, Paul taught that the Gentiles have become partakers of spiritual blessings, but these are Jewish spiritual blessings which are mediated through the Jewish covenants. The very fact that Gentiles have been made partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings has put them into debt to the Jews. The way they pay their indebtedness to the Jews, according to this verse, is to minister to them, that is, to Jewish believers, in material things.<\/p>\n
g. The Purpose of Gentile Salvation<\/p>\n
The major spiritual blessing which the Church enjoys is salvation, and Gentiles numerically are the primary recipients of this salvation. God has a purpose for Gentile salvation, and it is directly related to Israelology.
\nDuring the first decade of Church history, the Church was Jewish, and Christianity was Hebrew only. What few Gentiles there were in the early Church were originally proselytes to Judaism before they became believers in Christ. Gentiles, as Gentiles, were not to be found in the Church until Acts ten with Cornelius; only Gentiles as proselytes to Judaism. It took a special revelation from God to Peter in order to show him the necessity of witnessing to Gentiles as Gentiles and not limiting his witness to Gentiles who were proselytes to Judaism (Acts 10:9\u201316, 44\u201348). Even then, Peter had to defend his actions to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1\u201318). At about the same time, the Apostle Paul was saved for the purpose of being the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15, 20\u201321; 26:16\u201318). With the gospel of grace now open to all, Gentiles by the multitudes were saved, and in a very short period of time they greatly outnumbered the Jews in the Church. A natural question to ask is: Why has this happened? Why has God turned to the Gentiles? Is there a reason for it? The Scriptures give two reasons for the salvation of the Gentiles.
\nThe first reason was to gather from among the Gentiles a people for His name, as stated in Acts 15:13\u201318:<\/p>\n
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me: Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written. After these things I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.<\/p>\n
As God had a select group among the Jews known as the \u201cfaithful remnant,\u201d the Remnant of Israel, He is now also developing a select group among the Gentiles so that among them God will have a people for His name. While the calling of the Gentiles began with the Book of Acts in the New Testament, it was not unforeseen in the Old Testament. The very fact of a great Gentile response is a fulfillment of the Old Testament, another proof of the Messiahship of Jesus. One such Old Testament prophecy was quoted by James and is found in Amos 9:11\u201312. Another passage is found in Isaiah 49:5\u20136:<\/p>\n
And now saith Jehovah that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him (for I am honorable in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God is become my strength); yea, he saith, It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the Messiah was to be the One Who would bring about the future regeneration, regathering and restoration of Israel, but that is not all there was to the messianic mission. He was also to be the light to the Gentiles. Elsewhere, in Isaiah 42:1, it is written:<\/p>\n
Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n
The calling of the Gentiles was to be part of His messianic mission. One reason God is saving Gentiles is to have from among them a people for His name in completion of the messianic mission. The calling of the Gentiles, which had begun in earnest (Rom. 9:24\u201333), is temporary until the time that the full number of Gentiles is completed. For then God will again turn to Israel as a nation and begin dealing with her, as Romans 11:25\u201327 makes clear:<\/p>\n
For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye he wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved: even as it is written. There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: And this is my covenant unto them, When I shall take away their sins.<\/p>\n
The second reason God is saving Gentiles today is found in Romans 11:11\u201314:<\/p>\n
I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy. Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them.<\/p>\n
The second reason God is saving Gentiles today is so that the believing Gentiles can provoke the Jews to jealousy in such a way that many of them will come to Christ. The Greek word translated \u201cto provoke to jealousy\u201d is parazelao. It is a combination of two Greek words: para, meaning \u201cto come alongside of,\u201d and zelos, meaning \u201cto cause to burn, to seethe, to make red hot, to flame, to envy.\u201d The picture is that the Gentile Christian is to come alongside a Jew (para) in daily contact and to live such a life and be such a witness that the Jew will begin to burn with red hot envy (zelos) so that he will want the very thing the Gentile Christian has: the Jewish Messiah. God still has a remnant among the Jews today (Rom. 11:1\u201310), and the remnant will come to saving faith by being provoked to jealousy by Gentile believers.
\nThe second purpose leads to remnant salvation in this age. The first purpose will lead to Israel\u2019s national salvation in the future.<\/p>\n
4. The Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses<\/p>\n
As previous chapters have shown, Covenant Theologians all affirm that the Law of Moses is a role of life for today and then use this point as evidence of the superiority of their system over Dispensationalism. A more recent example of this attitude is the following:<\/p>\n
And is the NT law or moral code a contradiction to the OT moral code? It cannot be a contradiction if God has not changed; and if He is immutable, the NT law is simply a restatement of the same OT law. To say, as dispensationalists do, that we are not under OT law but under NT law is to posit two kinds of law from one immutable God. There is one law and one Lawgiver (James 4:11, 12). The same Ten Commandments that judged Israel judge us (Rom. 13:8\u201310; James 2:8\u201313). To posit two law systems is incipient to idolatry: for two conflicting systems of morality infer two gods with differing moralities. If the two law systems are the same, then why the fuss that we are not under OT moral law?\u2026 And who could improve on God\u2019s OT laws on adultery, theft, sodomy, blasphemy, etc?<\/p>\n
Such lofty statements break down when one comes to specifics and, in practice, none of the claimants really believe it. Even the authors of the above statement have earlier dismissed the ceremonial law. The other laws mentioned in the above quote are a very select list and concern only those areas where the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ agree. They ignore too many other laws, such as the wearing of clothes made of mixed threads. They ignore that Leviticus 11 distinguishes between clean and unclean foods, but that Jesus (Mark 7:19) and the apostles (Rom. 14:14) declared all meats clean. They talk about the same Ten Commandments, but then obviously reinterpret the fourth commandment on the Sabbath. Yet Covenant Theologians claim that it is all one and the same law. This is wishful thinking at best and sloppy exegesis at worst. This is trying to prove a theology by ignoring the details. The above authors emphasize the \u201cmoral code,\u201d but that was hardly the totality of the Law of Moses. As previous chapters have shown many times, all Covenant Theologians must make major adjustments to the Law of Moses to make it mandatory for today. Even when they limit it to the Ten Commandments, they must readjust the Sabbath commandment considerably. In the final analysis, they live under and with the same basic commandments that Dispensationalists do, but the Dispensationalists have a far more solid theological and exegetical basis for how they deal with the Law of Moses and are not forced to pick out of the law what is for today and what is not. What all Covenant Theologians conveniently ignore is that the law was given to Israel and not the Church.<\/p>\n
a. The Unity of the Law of Moses<\/p>\n
Two factors have developed in the minds and teachings of many Christians which have contributed to the confusion over the Law of Moses. One is the practice of dividing the law into ceremonial, legal, and moral commandments. On the basis of this division many have come to think that the believer is free from the ceremonial and legal commandments but is still under the moral commandments. The second factor is the belief that the Ten Commandments are still valid today while the other 603 commandments are not. When confronted by a Seventh Day Adventist, the individual taking this approach runs into problems concerning the fourth commandment on keeping the Sabbath. At that point fudging begins, which results in inconsistency. It must be understood that the Mosaic Law is viewed by the Scriptures as a unit. The word Torah, \u201claw,\u201d when applied to the Law of Moses, is always singular, even though it contains 613 commandments. The same is true of the Greek word nomos in the New Testament. The division of the Law of Moses into ceremonial, legal, and moral parts is convenient for the study of the different types of commandments contained within it, but it is never divided in this way by the Scriptures themselves. Neither is there any scriptural basis for separating the Ten Commandments from the whole 613 and making only the ten perpetual. All 613 commandments are a single unit comprising the Law of Moses.
\nIt is the principle of the unity of the Law of Moses that lies behind the statement found in James 2:10:<\/p>\n
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, ha is become guilty of all.<\/p>\n
The point is clear. A person needs only to break one of the 613 commandments to be guilty of breaking all of the Law of Moses. This can only be true if the Mosaic Law is a unit. If it is not, the guilt lies only in the particular commandment violated and not in the whole law. In other words, if one breaks a legal commandment, he is guilty of breaking the ceremonial and moral laws as well. The same is true of breaking a moral or ceremonial commandment. To bring the point closer to home, if a person eats ham, according to the Law of Moses he is guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments, although none of them says anything about ham. The law is a unit, and to break one of the 613 commandments is to break them all.
\nIn order to have a clear understanding of the Law of Moses and its relationship to the believer (Jewish or Gentile), it is necessary to view it as the Scriptures view it: a unit that cannot be divided into parts that have been done away with and parts that have not. Nor can certain commandments be separated in such a way as to give them a different status from other commandments.
\nOn this point, Dr. Robert Lightner, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote:<\/p>\n
The Mosaic Law has been divided traditionally into three parts\u2014the Ten Commandments (often considered the same as the moral law), the ordinances (ceremonial laws governing Israel\u2019s religious life), and the judgments (the judicial part of the Law governing her civil life).<\/p>\n
While these divisions of the Mosaic Law may be helpful, they must not be viewed as inspired and therefore divinely authoritative. All three parts together make up the whole, which was given as a single unit to Israel. That the Law contains legislation related to Israel\u2019s moral, religious, and civil life is not disputed. However, when the parts are divided to support the contention that some of the Law is still operative as a rule of life today while other parts are not, then a totally new and unwarranted concept is introduced, a concept foreign to the Old Testament. The Law given to Moses includes 613 commandments.\u2026<\/p>\n
As an indivisible unit the Law is not to be divided with some of it operative today while other parts are not.\u2026 Paul argued that all who were circumcised were \u201cunder obligation to keep the whole Law\u201d (Gal. 5:3). And James insisted that whoever proposes to keep \u201cthe whole law and yet stumbles in one point \u2026 has become guilty of all\u201d (James 2:10).<\/p>\n
b. The Law of Moses Has Been Rendered Inoperative<\/p>\n
The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of Christ; in other words, the law in its totality no longer has authority over any individual.
\nThis is evident first of all from Romans 7:1\u20136:<\/p>\n
Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth? For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.<\/p>\n
When a husband dies, a wife becomes a widow and, so, no longer bound to \u201cthe law of the husband\u201d (vv. 1\u20133). Therefore, she is free to remarry without committing the sin of adultery; she is now \u201cfree from the law,\u201d because a death has taken place. Paul then makes the theological application (vv. 4\u20136). Here, again, a death has taken place, the death of the Messiah. Believers have been \u201cmade dead to the law through the body of Christ\u201d (v. 4). The sin nature can no longer use the law as a base of operation (v. 5). Finally, Paul states that \u201cwe have been discharged from the law\u201d (v. 6). One is either married to the Law or to the Messiah but cannot be married to both.
\nThen, secondly, Paul adds in Romans 10:4:<\/p>\n
For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.<\/p>\n
The Greek word for \u201cend,\u201d telos, can mean either \u201ctermination\u201d or \u201cgoal.\u201d However, the evidence clearly favors the meaning of \u201cend.\u201d For example, Thayer gives the primary meaning of telos as:<\/p>\n
\u2026 end, i.e. a. termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be, \u2026 in the Scriptures also of a temporal end; \u2026 Christ has brought the law to an end \u2026<\/p>\n
Not only does Thayer give \u201ctermination\u201d as the primary meaning of telos, he also includes Romans 10:4 as belonging to that category of usage. Nor is \u201cgoal\u201d listed as a secondary or even a third in priority of usage; it is fourth on the list.
\nArndt and Gingrich give the primary meaning of the verbal form as \u201cbring to an end, finish, complete.\u201d The nominal telos is givers the primary meaning of: \u201cend \u2026 in the sense of termination, cessation.\u201d They too list Romans 10:4 as being in this category and list the meaning of \u201cgoal\u201d as being third on the list.
\nIn the final analysis, it does not matter since other Scriptures teach both truths: the Messiah is the goal of the law, but He is also the termination of the law. Since Christ is the end of the law, this means that there is no justification through it (Gal. 2:16). This, of course, was always true but, furthermore, there is no sanctification or perfection through the law (Heb. 7:19). Thus it should be very evident that the law has come to an end in Christ and cannot function in justification or sanctification. For the believer especially it has been rendered inoperative.
\nFurthermore, Romans 10:4 should also be interpreted with the wider context of Romans, which includes what Paul said in 7:1\u20136, when he declared that we are \u201cfree from the law\u201d and \u201cdischarged from the law.\u201d Consistency with Romans means that 10:4 must mean \u201ctermination\u201d and not \u201cgoal.\u201d
\nThird, the Saw was never meant to be a permanent administration but a temporary one, as evident in Galatians 3:19:<\/p>\n
What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.<\/p>\n
In context, Paul stated that the Law of Moses was an addition to the Abrahamic Covenant (vv. 15\u201318). It was added for the purpose of making sin very clear so that all will know that they have fallen short of God\u2019s standard for righteousness. It was a temporary addition until the seed (Messiah) would come; now that He has come, the law is finished. The addition has ceased to function with the cross.
\nFourth, with Messiah there is a new priesthood according to the Order of Melchizedek, not according to the Order of Aaron. The Law of Moses provided the basis for the Levitical priesthood and there was an inseparable connection between the Law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood. Thus, a new priesthood required a new law under which it could operate, according to Hebrews 7:11\u201318. The point made in Hebrews 7:11\u201312 is that under the law, only one type of priesthood was permitted and that was the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priesthood could not bring perfection. This is explained in Hebrews 9:11\u201310:18 which states rather clearly that animal blood cannot bring perfection; only the Messiah\u2019s blood could do that. The Mosaic Law was the basis for the Levitical priesthood. For the Levitical priesthood to be done away with and to be replaced by a new priesthood, the priesthood of Melchizedek, required a change of the law. As long as the Law of Moses was in effect no other priesthood was valid except the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood (Heb. 7:13\u201317). Was there a change of the law? Hebrews 7:18 states that the Mosaic Law was \u201cdisannulled.\u201d Because it is no longer in effect, there is now a new priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek. If the Mosaic Law was still in effect, Jesus could not function as a priest. Because the Mosaic Law is no longer in effect, Jesus can be a priest after the Order of Melchizedek. Consequently, the Law of Moses has been \u201cdisannulled\u201d in favor of a new law which is the basis for the priesthood according to the Order of Melchizedek.
\nFifth, the law was the middle wall of partition that was now broken down according to Ephesians 2:14\u201315:<\/p>\n
For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; \u2026<\/p>\n
As noted earlier, God made four unconditional eternal covenants with Israel, All of God\u2019s blessings, both material and spiritual, are mediated by means of these four Jewish covenants. God also had a fifth covenant which was temporary and conditional. It was the Mosaic Covenant that contained the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law served as a wall of partition to keep the Gentiles as Gentiles away from enjoying Jewish spiritual blessings. If the Mosaic Law was still in effect, it would still be a wall of partition to keep the Gentiles away; but the wall of partition was broken down with the death of Christ. Since the wall of partition was the Mosaic Law, that meant the Law of Moses was done away with. Gentiles as Gentiles on the basis of faith can and do enjoy Jewish spiritual blessings by becoming fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.
\nThe sixth line of evidence is based on Galatians 3:23\u20134:7. In this passage, the law is looked upon as a pedagogue or a tutor over a minor to bring him to mature faith in the Messiah (3:24). Having become believers, we are no longer under this tutor, i.e., the Law of Moses (3:25). As clear as it could be stated, this passage teaches that with Messiah\u2019s coming, the law is no longer in effect.
\nThe seventh line of evidence for the annulment of the Mosaic Law, 2 Corinthians 3:2\u201311, zeros right in on the part of the law that most people want to retain, the Ten Commandments. First of all, one needs to see what Paul is saying concerning the Law of Moses. In verse seven it is called the ministration of death. In verse nine it is called the ministration of condemnation. These are negative, but valid, descriptions. In verses three and seven the spotlight is on the Ten Commandments since it is these which were engraven on stones. The main point then is that the Law of Moses, especially as represented by the Ten Commandments, is a \u201cministration of death\u201d and a \u201cministration of condemnation.\u201d If the Ten Commandments were still in force today, this would still be true. However, they are no longer in force, for it states in verses seven and eleven that the law has \u201cpassed away.\u201d The Greek word used is katargeo, which means \u201cto render inoperative.\u201d Since the emphasis in this passage is on the Ten Commandments, this means that the Ten Commandments have passed away. The thrust is very clear. The Law of Moses, and especially the Ten Commandments, is no longer in effect. In fact, the superiority of the Law of Christ is seen by the fact that it will never be rendered inoperative. Unlike Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism does not insist that the Ten Commandments are still in force and do exegetical gymnastics to avoid observing the Sabbath, the very way the Ten Commandments actually require.
\nTo summarize, the law is a unit comprised of 613 commandments, and all of it has been rendered inoperative. There is no commandment that has continued beyond the cross of Christ. The law is there and can be used as a teaching tool to show God\u2019s standard of righteousness, as well as man\u2019s sinfulness and need of a substitutionary atonement. It can be used to teach many spiritual truths about God as a man. It can be used to point one to Christ (Gal. 3:23\u201325). However, It has completely ceased to function as an authority over the individual. It is no longer the rule of life for believers.
\nWhat about the moral law? It is this part of the Law of Moses that Covenant Theologians generally try to retain and, therefore, conclude that the Law of Moses is still in effect. Lightner has spelled out the dispensational view of the moral law:<\/p>\n
The moral law of God refers to those eternal principles that reflect the nature of God. Dispensationalists do not believe the moral law of God terminated at Calvary. Neither do they believe \u2026 that the moral law of God and the Ten Commandments are identical, McQuilkin verbalized dispensational sentiments when he said, \u201cThe moral law is not equivalent to the Mosaic Law; however, the Mosaic Law, which was \u2018added\u2019 because of transgressions, included the moral law. It included also the ceremonial law, civil law, criminal law, sanitary law, governmental law. But the moral law existed before Moses and continues after the cross.\u201d<\/p>\n
To do the things forbidden in the Ten Commandments did not first become wrong when the Decalogue was given to Moses and then to the children of Israel at Sinai. It had always been sinful to do those things. These basic principles stem from the person of God and are as eternal as He is.<\/p>\n
The moral law did not begin with Moses and did not terminate with Christ. The moral law is not identical to the Law of Moses. It preceded the Law of Moses. Adam and Eve broke the moral law long before Moses. Satan broke the moral law even before Adam. The Law of Moses embodied the moral law as does the Law of Christ, but it did not originate it.
\nA favorite objection to the dispensational view of the Law of Moses is Christ\u2019s statement in Matthew 5:17\u201318:<\/p>\n
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.<\/p>\n
Covenant Theologians who cite this passage are seldom consistent with it. It is obvious that Jesus was speaking of the Law of Moses. Yet no Covenant Theologian accepts his own thesis since he must believe in the doing away in some form of many of the commandments of the Law of Moses, if not most. The commandments concerning priesthood and sacrifice are only one example and others can be cited (food laws, clothing laws, etc.). Regardless of what semantics may be used to describe this change (\u201csupersede,\u201d \u201cbrought to greater fulfillment,\u201d \u201cbringing out its true meaning,\u201d et al.), it is clear that a great many of the 613 commandments no longer apply as they are written. If by the Law of Moses Covenant Theologians mean only the moral commandments, then their citation of Matthew 5:17\u201318 does not prove this since verse 19 adds these least commandments, which includes more than merely the moral commandments and the emphasis is on the entire law, all 613 commandments. Verse 19 reads:<\/p>\n
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall he called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.<\/p>\n
True, Jesus did come to fulfill the law; but the Law of Moses did not end with the coming of the Messiah, or by His life, but by His death. As long as He was alive, He was under the Mosaic Law and had to fulfill and obey every commandment applicable to Him. The statement of Matthew 5:17\u201319 (verse 19 most not be ignored) was made while He was living, and as long as He was living He had to obey the Law of Moses in every manner that Moses commanded and not in the way that the rabbis had reinterpreted it. Even while He was living, He already implied the doing away of the law. Once example is Mark 7:19: This he said making all meats clean. Can it be any clearer than this that at least the dietary commandments have been done away? Again, all Covenant Theologians must admit that great parts of the law no longer apply in the manner prescribed by Moses. Have they been done away with or not? To constantly claim that the Law of Moses is still in effect and\/or that it is the same as the Law of Christ, while ignoring the details of that same law, is inconsistent and a theological fallacy.
\nAs for the meaning of fulfill, the Greek term is consistently used by Matthew in reference to fulfilling prophecy and so bringing it to an end. Matthew 1:22\u201323 states that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled, that this brought the prophecy to an end and so nothing in the future will fulfill it. To fulfill meant to accomplish what prophecy demanded while to \u201cabolish\u201d meant to fail to fulfill it. The basic meaning of Matthew 5:17 is explained by Toussaint:<\/p>\n
The verb \u201cto fulfill\u201d \u2026 has the same meaning here as it did in Matthew 2:15 where it means to establish completely. Rather than destroying the law or the prophets, He establishes them. This He did by (1) perfectly conforming His life to its high standards, and (2) retrieving its true meaning from the niceties of its rabbinic interpretation.<\/p>\n
Lightner concludes:<\/p>\n
The fact that Jesus said, \u201cDo not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets,\u201d implies He knew there was the danger of such thinking and even accusation on the part of some. He knew what the Pharisees would say about Him because of His teaching and work. After all, Jesus did claim for Himself the authority of God. This is the background of Christ\u2019s teaching in Matthew 5:17\u201319.<\/p>\n
Rather than using \u2026 Matthew 5:17\u201319 to argue that the Mosaic Law is still operative today as a rule of life, it is better to understand Christ\u2019s words as teaching the inerrancy of Scripture. In verses 17\u201319 Christ has summarized the relationship of Himself and His teaching to the Law. He has unequivocally claimed to be the One who came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not to destroy them (5:17). Furthermore, He emphatically states that the whole Law in its entirety is as certain of fulfillment as the certainty of the endurance of heaven and earth (5:18). Before He interprets He makes it clear that what He is going to teach is in absolute harmony with the Old Testament According to His own testimony. He came to fulfill, because not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. He did not come to destroy or make void even the smallest portion of the teaching of the Law or the Prophets. According to His estimate, what may appear to be the least commandment is of equal authority with what may be considered the greatest (5:19).<\/p>\n
c. The Law of Christ<\/p>\n
The Law of Moses has been disannulled and we are now under a new law. This new law is called the Law of Christ in Galatians 6:2 and the Law of the Spirit of Life in Romans 8:2. This is a brand new law, totally separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the individual commandments from Christ and the Apostles applicable to a New Testament believer.
\nA simple comparison of the details will show that it is not and cannot be the same as the Law of Moses. Four observations are worth noting.
\nFirst, many commandments are the same as those of the Law of Moses. For example, nine of the Ten Commandments are also in the Law of Christ. But, second, many are different from the Law of Moses. For example, there is no Sabbath law now (Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16) and no dietary code (Mark 7:19; Rom. 14:20). Third, some commandments in the) Law of Moses are intensified by the Law of Christ. The Law of Moses said: love thy neighbor as thyself (Lev. 19:18). This made man the standard. The Law of Christ said: love one another, even as I have loved you (John 15:12). This makes the Messiah the standard and He loved us enough to die for us. Fourth, the Law of the Messiah provides a new motivation. The Law of Moses was based on the conditional Mosaic Covenant and so the motivation was: do, in order to be blessed. The Law of Christ is based on the unconditional New Covenant and so the motivation is: you have been and are blessed, therefore, do.
\nThe reason there is so much confusion over the relationship of the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ is that many commandments are similar to those found in the Mosaic Law, and many have concluded that certain sections of the law have, therefore, been retained. It has already been shown that this cannot be the case, and the explanation for the sameness of the commandments is to be found elsewhere. The explanation can best be understood if it is realized that there are a number of codes in the Bible, such as the Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, New, and Kingdom. A new code may contain some of the same commandments of the previous code, but this does not mean that the previous code is still in effect. While certain of the commandments of the Adamic Code were also found in the Edenic Code, it did not mean that the Edenic Code was still partially in force; it ceased to function with the fall of man. The same is true when we compare the Law of Christ with the Law of Moses. There are many similar commandments. For example, nine of the Ten Commandments are to be found in the Law of Christ, but this does not mean that the Law of Moses is still in force.
\nThe Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative and we are now under the Law of Christ. There are many different commandments; under the Law of Moses we would not be permitted to eat pork, but under the Law of Christ we may. There are many similar commandments, but they are nonetheless in two separate systems. If we do not kill or steal today, this is not because of the Law of Moses but because of the Law of Christ. On the other hand, if I steal, I am not guilty of breaking the Law of Moses but of breaking the Law of Christ.<\/p>\n
d. The Principle of Freedom<\/p>\n
The believer in Messiah is free from the Law of Moses. This means that he is free from the necessity of keeping any commandment of that system. On the other hand, he is also free to keep parts of the Law of Moses if he so desires. The biblical basis for this freedom to keep the law can be seen in the actions of Paul, the greatest exponent of freedom from the law. His vow in Acts 18:18 is based on Numbers 6:2, 5, 9 and 18. His desire to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost in Acts 20:16 is based on Deuteronomy 16:16. The strongest passage is Acts 21:17\u201326, where we see Paul himself, the apostle of freedom from the law, keeping the law. The believer is free from the law, but he is also free to keep parts of it. Thus, if a Jewish believer feels the need to refrain from eating pork, he is free to do so. The same is true for all the other commandments.
\nHowever, there are two dangers that must be avoided by any believer who volunteers to keep commandments of the Law of Moses. One danger is the idea that by doing so he is contributing to his own justification and sanctification. This is false and should be avoided. The second danger is in one\u2019s expecting others to keep the same commandments he has decided to keep. This is equally wrong and borders on legalism. The one who exercises his freedom to keep the law must recognize and respect another\u2019s freedom not to keep it.<\/p>\n
e. The Sabbath<\/p>\n
The Sabbath was the sign, seal, and token of the Mosaic Covenant. As long as that covenant was in effect, the Sabbath Law was mandatory. Dispensationalism teaches that since the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative, then the Sabbath command no longer applies. Covenant Theologians with their inconsistent insistence that the Law of Moses is still in effect, also insist that the Sabbath law applies. However, they totally ignore exactly what Moses wrote about how to keep the Sabbath and they even change the day of the week, which the Law of Moses does not allow. Many Jewish believers also insist on mandatory Sabbath keeping. Though they inconsistently base it on the Law of Moses, they at least retain it with the seventh day of the week. The apologetics used for mandatory Sabbath keeping are almost exclusively based upon the Old Testament for obvious reasons: there is no New Testament commandment for believers in general or Jewish believers in particular to keep the Sabbath. The claim that Sabbath observance is part of the New Covenant is nowhere supported by the New Covenant Scriptures themselves. In fact, if anything, they would teach the opposite.
\nBecause the question of the Sabbath is important to Israelology, it will be discussed at length as it relates to Israel Present. A number of quotes are from a recent detailed scholarly study on the Sabbath entitled, From Sabbath to Lord\u2019s Day, which is a work by several biblical scholars. Not one of them is a Dispensationalist, but their conclusions are often the same as Dispensationalists.<\/p>\n
(1) Is the Sabbath a Creation Ordinance?<\/p>\n
A major argument used to support mandatory Sabbath observance is based on the concept that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance. The passage used is Genesis 2:2\u20133:<\/p>\n
And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made.<\/p>\n
It should be pointed out that if this is a creation ordinance, it would be mandatory for both Jews and Gentiles, since at this point in the narrative no distinction between Jews and Gentiles exists. Even if it is accepted as a creation ordinance, it still would not be obligatory upon all. For example, marriage is clearly a creation ordinance (Gen. 2:18\u201325), but that does not make it mandatory for all. In the New Testament, celibacy and\/or singleness is considered an equally valid option (Matt. 19:10\u201312), and even a superior option (1 Cor. 7:1, 7).
\nHowever, there is no ordinance here. The passage does not issue any command whatsoever for the observance of the seventh day. The passage says nothing about what man should do on the seventh day, but only states what God did on the seventh day. The crucial term, shabbat, is not even used. There is no mention of man, only of God. The climax here is not upon the creation of man, but upon God\u2019s own triumphant rest. It is not found among the Noahic commandments, or among any of the commandments God gave to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. Furthermore, there is absolutely no record of its practice between Adam and Moses.
\nCommenting on this point, Chafer wrote:<\/p>\n
It is incredible that this great institution of the Sabbath could have existed during all these centuries and there be no mention of it in the scriptures dealing with that time. The words of Job, who lived five hundred years and more before Moses, offer an illustration. His experience discloses the spiritual life of the pre-Mosaic saint, having no written scriptures, and striving to know his whole duty to God. Job and his friends refer to creation, the flood, and many details of human obligation to God; but not once do they mention the Sabbath. Again, it is impossible that this great institution, with all that it contemplated of relationship between God and man, could have existed at that time and not have been mentioned at any portion of the argument of the book of Job.<\/p>\n
Writing along similar lines, Feinberg states:<\/p>\n
There are some who find a reference to the institution of the Sabbath at creation \u2026 It will be noted that there is no hint that God gave this Sabbath to man. He alone rested \u2026 Not only do those who keep the seventh day try to read into this passage the institution of the original Sabbath for all mankind, but even others go to this passage for their supposed authority for the Lord\u2019s Day. They reason that if the Sabbath received its authority here, and the observance of the seventh day has been changed to the first day, then the observance of the first day must go back to Genesis 2 for its authority. Another fact that militates against the view that the Sabbath began in Eden, is that we find no mention of it for centuries later \u2026<\/p>\n
A study of the period between Adam and Moses, a period of about twenty-five hundred years, will reveal that the institution of the Sabbath is not mentioned anywhere.\u2026 If the Sabbath did exist, then it is more than passing strange that, although we find accounts of the religious life and worship of the patriarchs, in which accounts mention is specifically made to the rite of circumcision, the sacrifices, the offering of the tithe, and the institution of marriage, we should find no mention of the great institution of the Sabbath. It did not exist \u2026<\/p>\n
In the New Testament, Genesis 2:2\u20133 is not treated as a creation ordinance, but is treated eschatologically of Messiah\u2019s salvation rest. Hebrews 4:3\u20134 uses the passage to teach that salvation rest is rooted in the Old Testament. It also interprets typologically the future heavenly rest. As Harold H. P. Dressler, Professor of Biblical Studies at Northwest Baptist Theological College in Vancouver, Canada, states:<\/p>\n
Genesis 2 does not teach a \u201ccreation ordinance\u201d \u2026 the institution of the Sabbath for the people of Israel, however, was based on the creation account and became a sign of God\u2019s redemptive goal for mankind.<\/p>\n
To summarize why the Sabbath is not a creation ordinance, the following should be noted; first, it does not use the term shabbat, but the seventh day; second, there is no command that it be obeyed as a day of rest; third, there is no record of anyone keeping the seventh day prior to Moses; and, fourth, in the Scriptures the seventh day is emphasized as a day of rest or cessation, but not as an observance.
\nThere is no basis for mandatory Sabbath observance for Jewish or Gentile believers on the basis of Genesis two. Again, if the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, it would be obligatory upon Jews and Gentiles, and not just Jewish believers.<\/p>\n
(2) The Perpetuity of the Sabbath<\/p>\n
Those who argue for a mandatory Sabbath observance on the basis of the Law of Moses will often refer to Exodus 31:13, which states that the Sabbath is to be observed throughout your generations; 31:16, that the Sabbath is to be a perpetual covenant; and, 31:17 where it is to be a sign between God and Israel for ever. According to the proponents of mandatory Sabbath-keeping, these terms show that the Sabbath obligation continues, although many other parts of the Mosaic Law are no longer in effect, such as the sacrificial system and the Levitical priesthood. However, while the English terms do tend to carry concepts of eternity, that is not the meaning of the Hebrew words themselves. Classical Hebrew had no word that actually meant \u201ceternal.\u201d The Hebrew term for \u201cforever\u201d (olam) as BDB states, means \u201clong duration,\u201d \u201cantiquity,\u201d or \u201cfuturity.\u201d The Hebrew forms mean nothing more than, \u201cuntil the end of a period of time.\u201d What that period of time is must be determined by the context or determined by related passages. In classical Hebrew, these words never meant or carried the concept of eternity, but had a time limitation. The period of time may have been to the end of a man\u2019s life, or an age, or dispensation, but not for ever in the sense of eternity. This is very clear from examining the usage of the same terminology in other passages.
\nFor example, the same Hebrew term for for ever is used to mean nothing more than up to the end of a man\u2019s life in Exodus 21:6:<\/p>\n
Then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or onto the door-post; his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. (Not for eternity, but for the rest of his life).<\/p>\n
Deuteronomy 15:17:<\/p>\n
Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear onto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. (Not for eternity, but for the rest of his life.)<\/p>\n
1 Samuel 1:22:<\/p>\n
But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned; and then I will bring him, that he may appear before Jehovah, and there abide for ever. (Not for eternity, but for the rest of his life.)<\/p>\n
1 Chronicles 28:4:<\/p>\n
Howbeit Jehovah, the God of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king of Israel for ever: \u2026 (David did not rule over Jerusalem for eternity, but he did rule for the rest of his life.)<\/p>\n
Other examples where olam means only to the end of a man\u2019s life include Exodus 14:13; Leviticus 25:46; 1 Samuel 20:23 and 27:12. Another way that the same term was used is when God said that He would dwell in the Solomonic Temple for ever in 1 Kings 9:3:<\/p>\n
And Jehovah said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou has made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou has built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually.<\/p>\n
The same statement is made in 2 Chronicles 7:16. However, God left the Temple in the days of Ezekiel. Obviously, for ever here meant the age or period of time of the First Temple only.
\nIn Deuteronomy 23:3, the concept of for ever is clearly limited:<\/p>\n
An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Jehovah for ever.<\/p>\n
Obviously here for ever is limited to ten generations.
\nEven more relevant to the issue at hand is that the same term is applied to other facets of the Law of Moses besides the Sabbath, such as the kindling of the Tabernacle lampstands (Exod. 27:21; Lev. 24:3); the ceremony of showbread (Lev. 24:8); the service of the brazen laver (Exod. 30:21); the Levitical priesthood and the priestly garments (Exod. 28:43; 40:15; Lev. 10:9; Num. 10:8; 18:23; 25:13; 1 Chron. 15:2; 23:13); the sacrificial system, including sacrifices, offerings, etc. (Exod. 29:28; Lev. 7:34, 36; 10:15; Num. 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19; 19:10); and, the Yom Kippur sacrifice (Lev. 16:34). If it is insisted that the Sabbath is still mandatory on the basis of the English word \u201cforever,\u201d then the same thing would have to apply to all these other facets of the Law of Moses. Yet those who insist on mandatory Sabbath-keeping will insist that the Messiah has put an end to all the others.
\nAs for the term perpetual covenant, it is also used of the ceremony of the showbread in Leviticus 24:9.
\nAs for the term throughout your generations, this too is limited in time. It is used of a man\u2019s life (Lev. 25:30); the Levitical priesthood (Exod. 40:15; Lev. 10:9; Num. 10:8; 18:23); the ceremony of the lampstands (Exod. 27:21; Lev. 24:3); the service of the brazen laver (Exod. 30:21); and the sacrificial system (Lev. 7:36; Num. 15:15).
\nIt is inconsistent exegesis to insist on the basis of such terms as forever, throughout your generations, and perpetual covenant that the Sabbath law is still mandatory without incorporating all of these other elements from the Law of Moses for the same reason.<\/p>\n
(3) The Law of Moses Has Been Rendered Inoperative<\/p>\n
The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death of Christ; in other words, the law in its totality no longer has authority over any individual; it is no longer the rule of life. The Scriptures for this were dealt with earlier.<\/p>\n
(4) The Ceremonial, Civil, and Moral Distinctions<\/p>\n
Even adherents of mandatory Sabbath-keeping realize that the vast majority of the Law of Moses no longer applies. In order to apply some of the law, they try to make distinctions in different types of commandments. This is the practice of dividing the law into ceremonial, legal, and moral commandments. On the basis of this division many have come to think that the believer is free from the ceremonial and legal commandments, but is still under the moral commandments. The Sabbath is viewed as a moral commandment and, as such, is still obligatory.
\nIt has already been shown that the Mosaic Law is viewed by the Scriptures as a unit. The division of the Law of Moses into ceremonial, legal, and moral parts is convenient for the study of the different types of commandments contained within it, but it is never divided in this way by the Scriptures themselves. Neither is there any scriptural basis for separating the Ten Commandments from the whole 613 and making only the ten perpetual. All 613 commandments are a single unit comprising the Law of Moses.
\nD. A. Carson, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Seminary, commenting on Matthew 12:1\u20138, Mark 2:23\u201328, and Luke 6:1\u20135, stated:<\/p>\n
In Sabbatarian apologetic, it is common to distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil law. The Sabbath commandment is then thought to be binding on all, not only because it is alleged to be a \u201ccreation ordinance,\u201d but also because it is part of the Decalogue, which is classified as \u201cmoral.\u201d The distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil law is apt, especially in terms of functional description, but it is not self-evident that either the Old Testament or New Testament writers neatly classify Old Testament law in those categories in such a way as to establish continuity and discontinuity on the basis of such distinctions. Even if such categories are applied, it should be noted that both David\u2019s law-breaking and that of the priests (found only in Matthew) come from ceremonial law. It is difficult, then, to resist the conclusion that their applicability to the Sabbath case puts Sabbath law in the ceremonial category with them.<\/p>\n
\u2026 it must be insisted that to read such categories back into Matthew 5:17\u201320 and conclude that only moral law is in view would be anachronistic. This is not to deny that Jesus Himself makes no distinctions whatever in Old Testament law, nor to say that the distinctions are always invalid. Rather, it is to say that the New Testament writers do not in any case appear to establish patterns of continuity or discontinuity on the basis of such distinctions. Certainly the phrase \u201can iota or a dot\u201d excludes any interpretation of the passage that claims that only \u201cmoral\u201d law is in view.<\/p>\n
Another writer in the same volume, M. Max B. Turner, a lecturer in New Testament at the London Bible College, wrote:<\/p>\n
Even less does He (or Luke) operate with such categories as \u201cmoral,\u201d \u201cceremonial,\u201d and \u201ccivil\u201d law, dividing some that are retained from others that are abolished. Indeed to bring such categories into the discussion at this point would be anachronistic. Jesus fulfills and surpasses the law.<\/p>\n
A. T. Lincoln, of Gordon Conwell Seminary, states:<\/p>\n
In all of his discussion and terminology Paul treats the Law of Moses as a total package and makes no distinction between moral and ceremonial elements within it.<\/p>\n
There is simply no biblical validity in making such distinctions and to make a part of the Mosaic Law continue and part of it not continue in order to make the Sabbath part of the law that is still obligatory, especially upon Jewish believers.<\/p>\n
(5) Is the Sabbath Law Moral or Ceremonial?<\/p>\n
Even if it is conceded (and it is not) that such distinctions are valid, is the Sabbath law a moral law? If it is a moral law, then those believers who do not keep the Sabbath are immoral. If they are logically consistent, then they must accuse all those who do not keep the Sabbath, at least Jewish believers who do not keep the Sabbath, as being immoral. However, the Law of Moses does not treat the Sabbath as a moral issue, but as a ceremonial issue. The requirements of what one must do or not do all have ceremonial aspects and not moral aspects, Certainly the adultery law is a moral commandment. Adultery is always wrong, regardless of the day of the week. However, the very things forbidden on the Sabbath day are allowed on other days, so obviously the actions themselves are not moral actions. The Sabbath is clearly ceremonial and not moral. If proponents of mandatory Sabbath-keeping insist that the moral law is in effect while the ceremonial and civil laws are not, then the Sabbath too has been done away. If they insist that the Sabbath law is a moral commandment, then those who do not keep the Sabbath must be declared to be immoral.<\/p>\n
(6) Summary Conclusion<\/p>\n
Not only is there no basis for mandatory Sabbath-keeping based upon the Sabbath being a creation ordinance, there can be no valid grounds for mandatory Sabbath-keeping from the Law of Moses. D.R. de Lacey, former instructor at London Bible College, now teaching at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, and one of the authors of From Sabbath to Lord\u2019s Day gives an excellent summary of law and its applicability today:<\/p>\n
The law presents mankind with the ethical standards of the holy God. As such, its goodness is unquestionable, but its effect is simply to demonstrate the existence of our sin, to condemn us as a result, and also to provoke our sin. Because of the weakness of the flesh, it can have no other effect on us when we read its righteous demands. Only death with Christ will remove us from the condemnation that it would otherwise constantly pronounce on anyone who endeavored to live by its standards.<\/p>\n
But the law also stands for the whole covenantal arrangement that God made with His people at Sinai, a covenant that, has now manifestly been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. In both of these aspects Paul realized that the law no longer played any role in the life of a Christian. His new and Christian insights into the \u201cexceeding sinfulness of sin\u201d also led him to see that any attempt, even by Christians, to use the law as a basis for a standing before God led inevitably to the sin of \u201cboasting,\u201d that is, faith in self rather than faith in God. The only Christian way to fulfill one\u2019s obligation to God is by fulfilling the law of love (the law of subordinating one\u2019s own self to the other), by walking in the Spirit. These two factors, love and the Spirit, Paul sees as keeping Christian obedience from degenerating into formal legalism. Too rarely, alas, has the church been able to preserve this Pauline insight.<\/p>\n
In a recent article, David A. Dorsey, a professor at the Evangelical School of Theology, addressed himself to the very subject. Dorsey presents his view as a compromise between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism (he briefly mentions four other views), but in actual fact, what he presents falls within basic Dispensationalism.
\nDorsey begins his article by showing what the problem is when people try to determine what part of the Law of Moses is in effect and what part is not:<\/p>\n
This can be seen in the subjectivity that generally characterizes the process of picking and choosing which laws are normative for Christians. Many writers, for example, assert that the Ten Commandments represent God\u2019s eternal, unchanging will for all people but then hedge on the fourth commandment, proposing that it be modified. The condemnation of homosexuality in Lev 20:13 is usually taken to be normative for our culture, but the other laws in that same chapter\u2014including the prohibition against eating \u201cunclean\u201d animals and the prescription of the death penalty for anyone who curses his father or mother\u2014are generally considered time-bound, applicable only in ancient Israel. The command in Lev 19:18 (\u201cLove your neighbor as yourself\u201d) is seen as binding upon the Christian, white the stipulation in the very next verse, which forbids the wearing of cloth woven from two kinds of material, is deemed inapplicable today. Fee and Stuart note the inconsistency in the exegetical methodology of Christians who, on the basis of Deut 22:5 (\u201cA woman shall not wear men\u2019s clothing\u201d), argue that Christian women should not wear slacks or shorts but do not consider as binding the other imperatives in that same list, which includes building a parapet around the roof of one\u2019s new house (v. 8), not planting two kinds of seeds in a vineyard (v. 9), and\u2014another regulation regarding dress\u2014the command to wear tassels on the four corners of one\u2019s cloak (v. 12).<\/p>\n
Dorsey\u2019s compromise, after listing six different views on the role of the Law of Moses today, is:<\/p>\n
Instead of offering a critique of each of these approaches I would like rather to suggest yet another view, a compromise view that in my opinion is more in keeping with the spirit of both the OT and NT, is less encumbered by inherent logical fallacies, and best accounts for the apparent ambivalence of the NT on the issue of the law. Simply stated it holds that, legally, none of the 613 stipulations of the Sinaitic covenant are binding upon NT Christians, including the so-called moral laws, while in a revelatory and pedagogical sense all 613 are binding upon us, including all the ceremonial and civic laws.\u2026<\/p>\n
That Christ\u2019s covenant was understood by the NT writers to be both new and different from the Sinaitic treaty is shown by the fact that it is called a \u201cbetter covenant\u201d (Heb 7:22) and a \u201csuperior covenant\u201d (8:6), that it is made with a reconstituted covenant people (Matt 21:33\u201343; Romans 9\u201311; etc.), that it involves a \u201cnew order\u201d (\u2026 Heb 9:10) and a new body of governing laws and principles (e.g. regulations concerning the Lord\u2019s supper and baptism; selection of elders; living under pagan magistrates and laws; regulations governing the use of spiritual gifts within the Church), and that the establishment of the new covenant has made the \u201cold covenant\u201d or \u201cfirst covenant\u201d with its constituent stipulations \u2026 \u201cobsolete\u201d (\u2026 cf. 2 Cor 3:14; Heb 8:13; 9:1; etc.).<\/p>\n
That the collection of 613 regulations comprising God\u2019s covenant with ancient Israel is not intended to legally govern the Church would seem obvious on another count: The vast majority of the laws are simply nonapplicable to and unfulfillable by the NT Christian.\u2026<\/p>\n
The author then goes on to give five reasons why the Law of Moses was uniquely relevant to Israel and not the Church and then concludes:<\/p>\n
In sum, the Sinaitic law code was very specifically designed by God to regulate the lives of the West Semitic inhabitants of the southern Levant. Nearly all the regulations of the corpus\u2014over ninety-five percent\u2014are so culturally specific, geographically limited, and so forth that they would be completely inapplicable, and in fact unfulfillable, to Christians living throughout the world today. This fact alone should suggest that the corpus is not legally binding upon Christians and that it cannot possibly represent the marching orders of the Church.<\/p>\n
In response to Covenant Theology, which insists that the moral law of the Mosaic Law is still binding, Dorsey gives three reasons why it does not fit New Testament teaching:<\/p>\n
This theory, proposing the normativity of a set of so-called \u201cmoral\u201d laws from the corpus, represents a praiseworthy effort to account for the Biblical data. Under closer scrutiny, however, it lacks convincing support.<\/p>\n
1. The scheme of a tripartite division is unknown both in the Bible and in early rabbinic literature. Its formulation appears rather to be traceable to modern Christian theology.\u2026
\nThe NT, to the contrary, speaks of the law in quite monolithic terms. Legal obligation to only a portion of the corpus is nowhere suggested. If one is legally bound to the law, it is to the entire law, including every \u201cminor\u201d stipulation, that he is bound. Paul writes: \u201cI declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the whole law\u201d (Gal 5:3). James states that the violation of one law makes one guilty of the whole law (Jas 2:10). And Jesus taught that \u201cthe one who breaks the least of these commandments \u2026 will be called least in the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Matt 5:19). In Gal 3:24\u201325 Paul declares that \u201cthe law\u201d\u2014not just one category of laws\u2014was a schoolmaster whose task was to bring us to Christ, and now that it has completed its task \u201cwe are no longer under the law.\u201d In none of these or similar passages is there any statement regarding categories of laws.<\/p>\n
2. The categorizing of certain selected laws as \u201cmoral\u201d is methodologically questionable. Which of the 613 laws is not \u201cmoral\u201d? The Sabbath, the parapet law, the prohibition against muzzling of the treading ox\u2014all the so-called \u201cceremonial\u201d and \u201ccivic\u201d laws embody or flesh out eternal moral and ethical principles. Conversely a number of the laws popularly categorized as \u201cmoral\u201d contain time-bound and culture-bound elements.\u2026
\n3. The attempt to formulate this special category in order to \u201csave\u201d for NT Christians a handful of apparently universally-applicable laws\u2014particularly the ones quoted in the NT\u2014is an unnecessary effort.\u2026<\/p>\n
Dorsey then presents his own solution. Though he does not label it as a dispensational view, it is the very view that Dispensationalism espouses:<\/p>\n
Having suggested that the Mosaic law in its entirety be removed from the backs of Christians in one sense, I would propose that the corpus be placed back into their hands in another sense: the entire corpus\u2014not just the \u201cmoral\u201d laws but all 613\u2014moral, ceremonial, civil. If on the one hand the evidence strongly suggests that the corpus is no longer legally binding upon Christians, there is equally strong evidence in the NT that all 613 laws are profoundly binding upon Christians in a revelatory and pedagogical sense.<\/p>\n
That all the Mosaic laws are applicable to Christians in this latter sense is implied by Paul\u2019s well-known statement in 2 Tim 3:16: \u201cAll Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.\u201d This assertion, referring as it does to the OT, presumably applies to all the OT Scriptures, including all the 613 laws, which suggests that each of the laws is inspired by God and that each is valuable for determining theological truths, for correcting misconceptions, for exposing and rectifying wrong behavior, and for training and equipping the Christian in practical, personal righteousness.<\/p>\n
Dorsey concludes with four hermeneutical principles in interpreting the Law of Moses and its present application:<\/p>\n
1. Remind yourself that this law is not my law, that I am not legally bound by it, that it is one of the laws God issued to ancient Israel as part of his covenant with them. When I look at this law I am looking over the shoulder of the Israelite \u2026
\n2. Determine the original meaning, significance and purpose of the law. What was its point? Why did God issue it? What apparently were his motives in giving it? (Allegorizing, spiritualizing and typologizing here are counter-productive, succeeding only in obscuring the original significance and purpose of the law.)
\n3. Determine the theological significance of the law. What does this law reveal about God and his ways?\u2026 In spite of the fact that these 613 laws were issued to another people who lived at another time under very different circumstances than ours \u2026 they come from the God whom we too serve, and they represent a vast reservoir of knowledge about him and his ways.
\n4. Determine the practical implications of the theological insights gained from this law for your own NT circumstances.\u2026<\/p>\n
(7) The Sabbath in the New Testament<\/p>\n
The Sabbath in the Old Testament was covered under Israel Past. Our survey of the Sabbath in the New Testament will be studied in four categories.<\/p>\n
(a) The Sabbath in the Gospels<\/p>\n
In the gospels, there are three major areas of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees: His claim to be the Messiah; the authority of the Mishnah and rabbinic traditions (such as the issue of washing hands and fasting); and, the proper way of observing the Sabbath.
\nIn Rabbinic Judaism, the Sabbath had become an end in itself. In fact, the belief was that Israel was created for the purpose of observing the Sabbath. The Sabbath became highly personified and looked upon as a queen (Malchat Shabbat) and a bride. By adding many additional Sabbath rules and regulations, the Pharisees made the Sabbath rest a burden in itself. Jesus accused the Pharisees of totally misconstruing the purpose of the Sabbath. The purpose of the Sabbath was to help man and not to enslave him. It is the human element of the Sabbath that should be emphasized, because the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). The Sabbath was made for Israel and not Israel for the Sabbath. Furthermore, as the Messiah, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8) and, therefore, can permit what they forbid and forbid what they permit.
\nThere is no question that Jesus observed the Sabbath in the manner prescribed by the Law of Moses, though not always in the manner prescribed by Rabbinic Judaism. However, this is not sufficient grounds to insist that Jewish or Gentile believers are obligated to keep the Sabbath. Jesus lived under the law and obeyed every one of the 613 commandments applicable to Him, be they in the category of moral, ceremonial, or civil. To insist that Jewish believers keep the Sabbath today because Jesus kept it would also require Jewish, believers to keep all of the other commandments, down to every jot and tittle, including those which proponents classify as ceremonial and civil.
\nOf the many commandments Jesus issued for His followers to keep, such as those of the Upper Room Discourse, the Sabbath is never mentioned as being one of them.<\/p>\n
(b) The Sabbath in the Book of Acts<\/p>\n
In the Book of Acts, the Sabbath is mentioned a total of nine times. The first time (1:12) it is used to measure the distance between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives (a Sabbath day\u2019s journey: about 3,000 feet). All other references relate to the Sabbath observance in the synagogue (13:14, 27, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4). No conclusions can be drawn about mandatory Sabbath-keeping for Jewish or Gentile believers on the basis of these passages. These passages refer to Jewish unbelievers in the synagogue service, and say nothing about the meeting of the Church. Paul attended these services for evangelistic purposes. Those who became believers because of Paul\u2019s preaching in the synagogue left and established a local church; no passage in any way indicates that the day of the week these churches met was the Sabbath. In fact, throughout the Book of Acts, there is no single reference of any church meeting on the Sabbath.
\nThis is not to deny that there were Jewish believers present in synagogues during the period of Acts. But there is no command in the Book of Acts for Jewish believers to hold corporate worship on the Sabbath. Furthermore, Jewish believers\u2019 presence in the synagogue was not the meeting of the Church. There are, of course, many reasons Jewish believers may have continued to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest, especially within the Land of Israel. These may have been for reasons of habit, social pressure, fear of sanctions, missionary policy (as in the case of Paul), conservative leadership in Jerusalem, and personal theological convictions. Again, there is no command for Jewish believers to observe the Sabbath, either as a day of rest or a day of worship, nor is there a single example in the Book of Acts of any local church, Jewish or Gentile, holding their meetings on the Sabbath.
\nThere are two other passages in the Book of Acts that may have a bearing on the question. The first is Acts 15:1\u201329, which records the proceedings of the Jerusalem Council. Initially, the issue was circumcision of the Gentiles (v. 1), but later it expanded to include the keeping of the Law of Moses (v. 5). This passage largely deals with what Gentile believers should or should not do rather than what Jewish believers should or should not do. A few statements might be relevant to the question of the practice of Jewish believers. Peter states in verse ten:<\/p>\n
Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?<\/p>\n
In this context, the yoke is clearly the Law of Moses. If the Jews (neither our fathers nor we) were unable to keep the law, there is no reason to force it upon the Gentiles and ask them to do what even the Jewish believers could not do. It is obvious that neither circumcision nor even Sabbath keeping was laid upon the Gentile believers to keep. Peter\u2019s statement implies that neither are these things obligatory for Jewish believers any more. Peter\u2019s words might mean that Jewish believers were equally exempt from the Law of Moses. Whether this is so or not, the fact remains that nowhere in this context is there any requirement for Jewish believers to keep the Sabbath.
\nThe second passage is in Acts 21:20\u201324:<\/p>\n
And they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law: and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children neither to walk after their customs. What is it therefore? they will certainly hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: we have four men that have a vow on them; these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, keeping the law.<\/p>\n
Again, there is no specific mention of the Sabbath, but that would certainly be part of the law (v. 20) and their customs (v. 21). However, the passage only deals with what Jewish believers in Jerusalem practiced and says nothing about mandatory Sabbath practice. To extrapolate out of this passage the requirement of Sabbath-keeping would be to extrapolate too much. The Sabbath is not the only commandment of the law, and certainly the zealousness of the Jerusalem Jewish believers for the law included much more than the Sabbath and would have included ceremonial and civil elements as well. What the passage does teach is that Jewish believers have the freedom to observe the law, but this is far from saying that they are required to keep the law. It allows for voluntary Sabbath-keeping, but not for mandatory Sabbath-keeping.
\nInsofar as the Book of Acts is concerned, there is no support for mandatory Sabbath-keeping for Jewish believers.<\/p>\n
(c) The Sabbath in the Epistles of Paul<\/p>\n
In all of Paul\u2019s writings, the Sabbath is mentioned in only one place, Colossians 2:16\u201317:<\/p>\n
Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is Christ\u2019s.<\/p>\n
This passage follows Paul\u2019s discussion in verses 8\u201315, in which he points out that the ordinances that were against us have been blotted out by the death of the Messiah. It is for that reason we no longer have the obligation to keep the law. Among the specifics he mentions are issues of meat and drink, feast day and Sabbath day. Like other aspects of the law, the Sabbath too is merely a shadow of things to come. In Hebrews 8:5, the whole Tabernacle system was a shadow, which is one of the reasons it is no longer obligatory. In Hebrews 10:1, the law, especially the sacrificial system, was also a shadow which is no longer obligatory. The same is clearly true in this passage of the Sabbath. As a shadow, it was previously obligatory but, now that the light has come, the shadow is no longer obligatory. If Sabbath-keeping was mandatory, then failure to keep it would put the violator under divine judgment. That is exactly what the context of this passage says is no longer true.
\nD. R. de Lacey states:<\/p>\n
As with the law, Paul\u2019s attitude to the festivals here seems to be that they have lost their intrinsic value but may yet be enjoyed by those who wish so to use them.\u2026 no stringent regulations are to be laid down over the use of festivals. As is the case with the law, the Christian is no longer bound by external stipulation in the matter of festivals.<\/p>\n
There are two other passages in Paul\u2019s writings which, while not mentioning the Sabbath, do relate to the question of the Sabbath. The first is Romans 14:4\u20136:<\/p>\n
Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the lord hath power to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.<\/p>\n
In verse four, there is a prohibition against fellow believers judging one another concerning practice in various areas. One of these areas concerns the observance of \u201cdays.\u201d If this is not limited to the Sabbath, it would certainly include it. According to verse five, one man is free to esteem a day as being more important than another, be it Saturday or Sunday, while another can view all days equally alike. Both options are valid options. Believers who do not keep the Sabbath should not judge those who do so as legalists, unless those who choose to do so begin to make it mandatory for all other believers. Jewish believers who do choose to keep the Sabbath should not judge the Jewish identity or loyalty of other Jewish believers on that basis. This passage is a very strong one against mandatory Sabbath-keeping for either Jews or Gentiles.
\nThe second passage is Galatians 4:10: Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. In the context of the Book of Galatians, the issue is clearly the Law of Moses (2:16, 19, 20; 3:2, 5, 10\u201329; 4:4\u20135, 21; 5:3\u20134, 14; 6:13). The months refer to the New Moon festivals. The seasons refer to the Seven Holy Seasons of Israel. The years refer to the Sabbatical Year, and perhaps the Year of Jubilee. The term days is the Sabbath days. Paul clearly plays down their value, either as a means of salvation or even as a means for a believer living out his lifestyle. As de Lacey has also stated:<\/p>\n
\u2026 Paul viewed any attempt to impose Sabbath keeping \u2026 upon Gentiles as wrong, and any tendency on the part of converts to submit to this coercion as a retrograde step.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, in none of his writings does Paul ever state that it is mandatory for all believers to keep the Sabbath or that it is mandatory for Jewish believers to keep the Sabbath while for Gentiles it is not. After extensively evaluating Paul\u2019s writings, de Lacey concludes:<\/p>\n
What does this tell us about Paul\u2019s attitude to the Sabbath? The clear implication is that he refuses to dogmatize one way or the other. An individual may keep the Sabbath or not; presumably, in general Paul might have assumed that a Jewish Christian would do so and a Gentile convert would not. The important factor was not which practice one adopted, but one\u2019s motives; to convert for inadequate reasons is reprehensible. Thus Paul was probably content to allow a wide variety of practice in the churches.<\/p>\n
(d) The Sabbath in the Book of Hebrews<\/p>\n
The Book of Hebrews treats the Sabbath typologically rather than literally as a day of worship. This is not unprecedented. Already in Deuteronomy 12:9, the concept of rest, closely associated with the Sabbath, is also associated typologically with the land of Israel:<\/p>\n
For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which Jehovah thy God giveth thee.<\/p>\n
This may also be intimated in the gospels. The statement Jesus makes concerning spiritual rest in Matthew 11:28\u201330 immediately precedes the report: of two Sabbath conflicts with the Pharisees over the proper way of observing the Sabbath (12:1\u201313). In Luke 4:16\u201321, Jesus used the Sabbath day to proclaim His Messiahship in Nazareth, and to proclaim salvation rest. In John 5:1\u201330, in the context of a Sabbath conflict, Jesus offered heavenly rest.
\nIn Hebrews 3:7\u20134:13, the writer treats at length the concept of rest from the Old Testament in a typological way to emphasize present salvation rest and future heavenly rest. Two portions in particular relate to the Sabbath question. The first is 4:3\u20134:<\/p>\n
For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.<\/p>\n
The point the writer makes is that his teaching on salvation rest is based on the Old Testament. The specific reference is to the seventh day of creation of Genesis 2:2\u20133. God\u2019s creation rest is interpreted typologically as referring to the present salvation rest.
\nThe second passage is Hebrews 4:9: There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. The use of the term sabbath refers to the Sabbath of the Law of Moses, which is here interpreted typologically in reference to the future heavenly rest.
\nIt is noteworthy that in this epistle, written specifically to Jewish believers, nothing is said anywhere about mandatory keeping of the Sabbath. This is also true of the other epistles specifically written to Jewish believers, such as James, I Peter, II Peter, and Jude.<\/p>\n
(e) Summary and Conclusions<\/p>\n
The teaching of the New Testament is clear. While the day of the Sabbath has never been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, there is no longer any obligation to observe the Sabbath, either on the basis of the Old Testament, the Law of Moses, or New Testament teaching.
\nThe Jewish believer, freed from the Law of Moses, has also been freed from mandatory keeping of the Sabbath, though there is nothing in the New Testament that prohibits the Jewish believer from keeping the Sabbath if he so chooses. Not only is he free to keep it, he is free to keep it in any manner he would like to keep it, either strictly as a day of rest, which was the way the Old Testament proclaimed it, or a day of worship, which was a much later innovation. The point is that the day of choice is purely optional and, in fact, no particular day of the week must be set aside. Individually, each believer, Jew or Gentile, has the option to choose whether he will set aside a day or not and, if so, which day of the week he will choose to set aside.
\nCorporately, or congregationally, the church must meet (Heb. 10:25), but the choice of the day of the week is to be determined by each individual congregation.<\/p>\n
(8) Sunday<\/p>\n
A few things should also be said about Sunday, since Covenant Theologians often insist that Sunday is now the Sabbath and Sabbath laws apply to if.
\nIn many circles it has been taught that Sunday worship universally began only in A.D. 321 with the Law of Constantine, or A.D. 364 with the Council of Laodicea. However, the authors of From Sabbath to Lord\u2019s Day have shown with excellent documentation that Sunday worship was a very universal practice of all churches outside the Land of Israel by the beginning of the second century. They also clearly point out that in those early days, while Sunday was viewed as a day of worship, it was not viewed as a Sabbath, What later church councils did was ratify a practice already common, and only then did they begin to apply the Sabbath rules to Sunday, In the beginning it was not so. Sunday was a day of worship but not a day of rest. As church history developed, more and more Sabbath laws from the Old Testament were applied to Sunday, and this concept is present to this day. So many speak of the \u201cChristian Sabbath,\u201d or the \u201cSunday Sabbath.\u201d However, it is no more correct to speak of a \u201cChristian Sabbath\u201d than a \u201cJewish Sunday.\u201d As has been shown in chapter III, Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, goes to great lengths to insist that all of the Ten Commandments still apply, including the fourth commandment. He also insists, with no scriptural evidence, that the fourth commandment now applies to the first day of the week and not the seventh. His evidences are all derived from the Old Testament, and he insists that the United States Government issue laws that will require Sunday observance on a society that may not even believe. His arguments, taken from the Law of Moses, ignore the seventh day emphasis of that same law.
\nEven Dispensationalists, who should know better, often fall into the same trap:<\/p>\n
As the Sabbath commemorates God\u2019s creation rest, the first day speaks of Christ\u2019s resurrection. The seventh day marks God\u2019s creative rest. On the first day Christ was unceasingly active. The seventh day commemorates a finished creation, the first day, a finished redemption. In the present dispensation of grace, Sunday perpetuates the truth that one-seventh of one\u2019s time belongs to God. In every other particular there is contrast.<\/p>\n
The Council of Elders of Grace Community Church in Los Angeles, a dispensational church, in an unpublished paper critical of a variety of practices by Jewish believers, states:<\/p>\n
The Misunderstanding of Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s Day<\/p>\n
To the Jew the Old Testament taught him: \u201cSo you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them\u201d (Leviticus 18:5). The Jew was taught that if he was obedient he would get his reward at the end. In commenting on the 5th Commandment in Exodus 20:12, the Apostle Paul says that honoring one\u2019s father and mother was the first commandment with a promise (Ephesians 6:2), a promise of more days at the end of one\u2019s life. This was also how the Jew viewed the Sabbath. He lived six days in obedience to God and he was rewarded on the seventh day with a day of rest. However, for the Christian God has already rewarded him. \u201cThere is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus\u201d (Romans 8:1). Thus, we have the Lord\u2019s Day at the beginning of the week and live out our reward the rest of the week. The injunctions to observe the Sabbath is the only one of the Ten Commandments that does not have a counterpart somewhere in the New Testament. And the insistence of all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, in the Early Church to observe the Lord\u2019s Day (Sunday) rather than the Sabbath (Saturday) is proof positive that all Christians perceived the day changed as more than just a matter of preference, convenience, or sentimentality (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10).<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of the Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage their Hebrew Christian constituents to reassert the Sabbath over against the Lord\u2019s Day? What is their New Testament justification for such an action? Don\u2019t they understand we have already been rewarded in Christ?<\/p>\n
All of the above quotations make some radical assumptions which they never attempt to prove: in particular, that somehow Sunday is a mandatory day of worship, whether they call it Sabbath or the Lord\u2019s Day.
\nIt should be pointed out that Sunday is never called the Sabbath in the New Testament, but always the first day of the week. Nor is it ever called \u201cthe Lord\u2019s Day.\u201d Although the early church fathers certainly did use that term for Sunday, it was not so used in the New Testament. The one place where that term appears is Revelation 1:10, and there is no reason to assume that this day was a Sunday. There is good reason to believe it was not. In this passage, the term \u201cLord\u201d in the Greek text is not a noun but an adjective. It would be better translated as a lordy day. It does not refer to a specific day of the week such as the Sabbath, Saturday, or Sunday. Rather, it was a day in which John was enraptured by prophetic and divine ecstasy, and received divine revelation. It was a day in which he fell under the control of the Holy Spirit and was given prophetic inspiration. For him it was, indeed, \u201ca lordy day.\u201d
\nIt is true that by the second century churches observed Sunday as a day of worship. It is also clear that the Pauline churches in the first century observed the first day of the week as a day of worship. This is rather apparent from Acts 20:7\u20138, 11:<\/p>\n
And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered together \u2026 And when he was gone up, and had broken the bread, and eaten, and had talked with them a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.<\/p>\n
The Church of Troas clearly met on the first day of the week. However, it should not be assumed that this meant Sunday morning, as is customary today. In fact, the Church of Troas had its meeting on Saturday night. In the author\u2019s own response to the paper issued by Grace Community Church, the following was stated:<\/p>\n
Furthermore, your citation of Acts 20:7 to prove a Sunday observance is not correct. The passage does say the first of the week, but you are ignoring that for Jews the first day of the week happened to be sundown Saturday until sundown Sunday and did not begin with the midnight hour between Saturday and Sunday. The Jewish believers did not meet Sunday morning as the Grace Community Church has chosen to do (and you have the freedom to do so); they met Saturday night. The meeting referred to in Acts 20:7 occurred on a Saturday night and not on a Sunday morning. A careful exegesis of verse seven will clearly bring out that point. The verse says, And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them \u2026 So far, the verse has stated that the church got together on the first day of the week, which, for Paul, as well as for all Jews, began sundown Saturday. The very next day would have been the Gentile Sunday. He would have been traveling on Sunday morning rather than worshipping on Sunday morning. The proof of all this is in the final phrase of verse seven, \u2026 and prolonged his speech until midnight. This makes perfect sense if it is realized that the meeting of the church occurred Saturday night and not Sunday morning. If Grace Community Church wishes to believe that the meeting of Acts 20:7 occurred Sunday morning at 11:00 a.m., they would have to claim that Paul preached for 13 hours straight until midnight on Sunday! That would certainly make the whole passage totally nonsensical.<\/p>\n
The simple exegesis of Acts 20:7 is that the church at Troas met on the first day of the week, Saturday night after sundown, and Paul was planning to leave the city the next morning, or Sunday morning. Because the service started at night, and because of other elements involved in the worship, Paul began preaching and continued to preach past midnight. The fact that the church was meeting at night and not in the morning becomes rather evident in two ways: first, Paul preached until midnight, and secondly, in verse eight it was necessary to light lamps in the upper room where they were gathered.<\/p>\n
Those messianic congregations that insist on a Friday night or Saturday morning worship are wrong if they make it a requirement; but if they merely make it optional, they have the total freedom to do so. Those who absolutely require Sunday worship are equally wrong, because they have no biblical validity. If Grace Community Church wishes to use Acts 20:7 as the rule of thumb, then they will have to insist on a Saturday night worship, not a Sunday morning worship! The clear teaching of the New Testament is that, in this Dispensation of Grace, it is not obligatory that a particular day be set aside, and there is freedom in the Lord in the matter; therefore, let each individual congregation make its own choice. To claim, as the paper does, that the \u201cinsistence of all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, in the early church to observe the Lord\u2019s day (Sunday) rather than the Sabbath (Saturday) is proof positive that all Christians perceived the day change as more than just a matter of preference, convenience, or sentimentality,\u201d is, frankly, false from several perspectives. It is, first of all, historically false; the historical records of Jewish Christianity in the land for the first four centuries show that Jewish believers, as a rule, met together on Saturday night and not on Sunday. It is also theologically untrue, because Sunday is never referred to as \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day,\u201d and there is no so-called \u201cproof positive\u201d that the day of worship was changed.<\/p>\n
Concerning your question, \u201cWhy do the proponents \u2026 encourage their Hebrew Christian constituents to reassert the Sabbath over against the Lord\u2019s day?\u201d, if they truly encourage people to reassert the Sabbath over against any other day, then they are wrong; but if they are merely giving Jewish believers the option of which day to choose, then they are right. Those Jewish congregations that insist that the Sabbath must be the day of worship are wrong, but those Gentile congregations that insist that Sunday must be the day of worship are equally wrong.<\/p>\n
Evidence is strong that the practice of the church meeting on the first day of the week actually began with Jewish believers within the Land of Israel itself. Since Jewish believers continued to attend the synagogue and temple on Saturday morning, they needed another time to gather together as believers, and did so on the first day of the week. In Jewish timetables, the first day of the week begins on sundown Saturday and not midnight Saturday. While they did meet on the first day of the week, it was Saturday night.
\nEven the Talmud contains an implication that first day observance began with Jewish believers:<\/p>\n
On the eve of the Sabbath they did not fast out of respect to the Sabbath; still less did they do so on the Sabbath itself. Why did they not fast on the day after the Sabbath? Rabbi Johanan says, Because of the Nazarenes (B. Taanit, 27b).<\/p>\n
The Sabbath is a time of eating so Jews generally do not fast before or on the Sabbath. The question is, why not fast at any time on the day after the Sabbath? The answer is, to avoid showing any respect to the day regarded as special by the Nazarenes. The significance of this quotation is that Jewish believers were worshipping on the first day of the week.
\nThis is also the conclusion of the authors of From Sabbath to Lord\u2019s Day. Turner, in his article quoted earlier, also states:<\/p>\n
We must conclude that it is barely imaginable that first-day Sabbath observance commenced before the Jerusalem Council. Nor can we stop there; we must go on to maintain that first-day Sabbath observance cannot easily be understood as a phenomenon of the apostolic age or of apostolic authority at all.<\/p>\n
If an apostolic decision was made after the council on so important a matter as this, it would not have been an easy decision to reach and it would inevitably have left its mark in the epistles and in Acts. But as we have seen, Acts is silent on the issue and Paul\u2019s handling of controversies involving the Law and the Sabbath makes it difficult to believe that he knew of any Sabbath transference theology.<\/p>\n
Turner makes the point that while the first day of the week was observed by the Jewish believers even within the land, they did not view it as a Sabbath, nor were they practicing \u201ctransference theology\u201d by applying Sabbath laws to Sunday. The Jewish believers did meet on the first day of the week, but did not make it a Sabbath or a day of rest, or transfer Sabbath laws to Sunday.
\nAs with the Jewish believer\u2019s practice of observing the law, the New Testament only states what the early believers did on the first day of the week. Nowhere is the first day of the week an obligatory day of observance. Nowhere is there a command that the church meet on the first day of the week. It is not wrong to do so, but it is not mandatory either.
\nWhile in most of the western world Sunday is certainly a convenient day, it cannot be imposed. As de Lacey further states:<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s contribution to our quest, then, is limited but of significance. While he forbids us from stating that Christians may not observe Sunday as the Christian day par excellence, he also forbids us from imposing such observance as a duty upon our fellow believers. Since, at least in much of the world, Sunday is allowed to the majority of us as a day of rest and a day suitable for worship, we may surely gratefully receive it as such; but our study of Paul forbids us from erecting any theological edifice upon this convenient, but fortuitous fact.<\/p>\n
If a Jewish believer chooses to observe the Sabbath, he is free to do so, whether it be a day of rest or a day of worship. If a Jewish congregation chooses to have its meeting on Saturday, it is also free to do so. However, it is forbidden to impose a mandatory Sabbath observance either individually or corporately, as it is forbidden to mandate a Sunday observance individually or corporately:<\/p>\n
It is not unreasonable to suppose that Sunday was seen at an early stage as an appropriate day for a Christian feast, and no doubt every Christian feast was at least in part a eucharist. Nothing that we have seen in Paul\u2019s writings could lead us to suppose that he would deny the appropriateness of a meeting for worship and eucharist on Sunday, whether or not he or the churches ever in fact contemplated such a practice. Some contemporary writers, however, wish to go further than this, in claiming that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, and that its observance is therefore a fulfillment of the fourth commandment. We have already seen enough to realize what short shrift this approach would have received from Paul. Not only is he opposed to the reestablishment of the Decalogue as a law for the Christian life, but he is also quite happy to allow the seventh-day Sabbath to be observed\u2014a position quite incompatible with any identification of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.<\/p>\n
5. Israel and the Church<\/p>\n
All three schools of Covenant Theology insist that at some point the Church becomes Israel and the evidences they produce have been dealt with in the preceding chapters. Some make sweeping statements that the two terms are used virtually interchangeably, but when asked to produce the evidence, all point to Galatians 6:16 and some to Romans 9:6, which is really the extent of their \u201cconclusive\u201d evidence. The ninth chapter has already produced the many reasons Dispensationalists make a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church and they need not all be repeated here. However, for the sake of completeness, a summary of these arguments will be given here. The purpose of this section is to present a dispensational view of those passages used to teach that the Church is spiritual Israel or that Gentile believers become spiritual Jews.
\nOne more thing should be said by way of introduction. Dispensationalists have correctly seen the consistent distinction the Bible makes between Israel and the Church, but have not always used the best terminology in trying to show the nature of this distinction. One such unwise common distinction which many Dispensationalists make (some of whom were cited In chapter IX) is to describe Israel as an \u201cearthly people\u201d with \u201cearthly promises,\u201d white the Church is a \u201cheavenly people\u201d with \u201cheavenly promises.\u201d However, such a distinction is not correct nor is it necessary or in any way germane to Dispensationalism. The truth is that each entity has both an earthly future with earthly promises and a heavenly future with heavenly promises. The distinction between Israel and the Church is a biblical one and there are clear distinctives in God\u2019s program for each, but the contrast between earthly and heavenly is not one of them.<\/p>\n
a. The Evidences for the Distinction of Israel and the Church<\/p>\n
The first evidence is the fact that the Church was born at Pentecost. This is based on the relationship of Spirit-baptism to the Church. According to Colossians 1:18, the Church is the Body of Christ:<\/p>\n
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.<\/p>\n
According to 1 Corinthians 12:13, entrance into this Body is by Spirit-baptism:<\/p>\n
For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.<\/p>\n
According to Acts 1:5, Spirit-baptism was still future as of that point:<\/p>\n
\u2026 for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.<\/p>\n
So when did Spirit-baptism actually begin? The answer is that Spirit-baptism began in Acts 2:1\u20134. The problem is that this passage does not actually state that the events of that passage included Spirit-baptism. However, the fact that it did is evident from Acts 11:15\u201316:<\/p>\n
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
Peter, while defending his actions of going into the house of a Gentile in Acts ten to preach the gospel, points out that the Gentiles received the same experience of Spirit-baptism as did the Jews (v. 15). Peter states that the Holy Spirit fell on them, meaning the Gentiles (Acts 10:44\u201346), as the Holy Spirit once fell on us, meaning the Jewish believers, at the beginning, and the beginning for the Jewish believers was in Acts 2:1\u20134. Then Peter quotes Acts 1:5 (v. 16) showing that the prophecy of Jesus in Acts 1:5 was fulfilled in Acts 2:1\u20134. Since Spirit-baptism is necessary to the existence of the Church, and since this ministry of the Holy Spirit only began as of Acts two, then the Church did not exist before then, but only began in Acts two. There is no biblical evidence that the Church began either with Adam or Abraham or that it existed in the Old Testament. The use of the future tense in Matthew 16:18 shows it did not exist in gospel history either:<\/p>\n
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.<\/p>\n
The second evidence is that certain events in the life of the Messiah were prerequisites to the establishment of the Church and so the Church could not come into being until these events took place. There were three such events. The first such event is His death by which the atonement was provided and it was on the basis of the blood of the Messiah that the Church is to be built. It is no accident that it is right after Jesus announced that He would build a new entity, the Church (Matt. 16:18) that He also began predicting His coming death (Matt. 16:21). The second event was the resurrection of Christ according to Ephesians 1:20\u201323:<\/p>\n
\u2026 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.<\/p>\n
While the Church is the Body, Christ is the head of the Church and He became the head only by virtue of his resurrection. The third event was the ascension of Christ according to Ephesians 4:7\u201311:<\/p>\n
But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, And gave gifts unto men. (Now this, He ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; \u2026<\/p>\n
The Church could only become a functioning entity once the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts. According to this passage, these spiritual gifts could only be provided after the ascension.
\nThe third evidence is the mystery character of the Church. A mystery is a New Testament truth not revealed in the Old (Eph. 3:3\u20135, 9; Col. 1:26\u201327). While the Church itself is not called a mystery, a number of features relevant to the Church are. There are four such features. First, the body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated as a mystery in Ephesians 3:1\u201312. Second, the doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ in you concept, is called a mystery in Colossians 1:24\u201327; 2:10\u201319; 3:4, 11. Third, the Church as the Bride of Christ is called a mystery in Ephesians 5:22\u201332. Fourth, the Rapture with its corollary events of the resurrection of the dead and the translation of the living is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50\u201358. The four mysteries, all relevant to the Church, show that the Church itself is a mystery and distinct from Israel.
\nThe fourth evidence is that the Church is called the one new man in Ephesians 2:15:<\/p>\n
\u2026 having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; \u2026<\/p>\n
Paul mentioned three groups in this context (2:11\u20133:6): Israel, the Gentiles, and the one new man. This one new man is distinguished from both Israel and the Gentiles and is comprised of believing members from both: that he might create in himself of the two \u2026 This one new man is identified as the Church in 2:16 (the body) and 3:6 (same body).
\nThe fifth evidence is that the same three groups are distinguished from each other in 1 Corinthians 10:32:<\/p>\n
Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God: \u2026<\/p>\n
This is a contrast made well after the Church has been established.
\nThe sixth evidence is the fact that the term Israel is never used of the Church. This will be expanded upon in the next section.
\nAgain, the above evidences have been only a summary of the details presented in chapter nine. The reader should refer to that chapter for the details of these arguments and evidences.<\/p>\n
b. The Use of Israel in the New Testament<\/p>\n
Covenant Theologians boldly state that the Church is the new Israel and sometimes make it sound as if that claim is an obvious foregone conclusion of the New Testament. Cox even claimed that the two terms are used interchangeably. The truth is that the term Israel is used a total of 73 times in the New Testament. As the following list shows, such a bold claim is unwarranted from the evidence:<\/p>\n
Matthew 2:6 Quotation of Micah 5:2 which prophesies that the Messiah shall be shepherd of my people Israel.<\/p>\n
Matthew 2:20 Geographical reference concerning the family\u2019s return to the land of Israel.<\/p>\n
Matthew 2:21 Same as above.<\/p>\n
Matthew 8:10 Jesus contrasts the faith of the Roman Centurion with that of unbelieving Israel: I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.<\/p>\n
Matthew 9:33 The response of the multitudes to the miracles of Jesus, It was never so seen in Israel.<\/p>\n
Matthew 10:6 The disciples are instructed not to go among the Gentiles and Samaritans but to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.<\/p>\n
Matthew 10:23 Geographical notation of the work of the disciples in the cities of Israel.<\/p>\n
Matthew 15:24 Christ\u2019s ministry was but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.<\/p>\n
Matthew 15:31 The multitudes glorified the God of Israel when they saw the miracles of Jesus.<\/p>\n
Matthew 27:9 Quotation of Zechariah 11:12\u201313 which prophesied that the Messiah will be sold out for thirty pieces of silver by the children of Israel.<\/p>\n
Matthew 27:42 Jesus is mocked as the king of Israel.<\/p>\n
Mark 12:29 Quotation of Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear O Israel.<\/p>\n
Mark 15:32 Jesus is mocked as the king of Israel.<\/p>\n
Luke 1:16 The ministry of John was to get many of the children of Israel to turn to the Lord.<\/p>\n
Luke 1:54 God has provided the Messiah to give help to Israel his servant.<\/p>\n
Luke 1:68 A reference to God as the God of Israel.<\/p>\n
Luke 1:80 John was in the deserts until the day of his showing unto Israel.<\/p>\n
Luke 2:25 Simeon was looking for the Messianic Hope as the consolation of Israel.<\/p>\n
Luke 2:32 While the Messiah was to be a light for revelation to the Gentiles, He is also to be for the glory of thy people Israel.<\/p>\n
Luke 2:34 The Messiah is appointed to be for the falling and rising of many in Israel.<\/p>\n
Luke 4:25 An historical reference to the widows in Israel in the days of Elijah.<\/p>\n
Luke 4:27 An historical reference to the lepers in Israel in the days of Elisha.<\/p>\n
Luke 7:9 Jesus contrasts the faith of the Roman Centurion with that of unbelieving Israel: I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.<\/p>\n
Luke 22:30 The disciples are promised authority over the twelve tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n
Luke 24:21 The two Emmaus disciples describe Jesus as the one they hoped would redeem Israel.<\/p>\n
John 1:31 The Messiah was to be made manifest to Israel through John\u2019s baptism.<\/p>\n
John 1:49 Nathanael described Jesus as the King of Israel.<\/p>\n
John 3:10 Jesus refers to Nicodemus as the teacher of Israel.<\/p>\n
John 12:13 The multitudes at the triumphal entry describe Jesus as the King of Israel.<\/p>\n
Acts 1:6 The disciples ask, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? Obviously, the disciples had ethnic Israel and not the Church in mind in this context.<\/p>\n
Acts 2:22 Peter is addressing an unbelieving Jewish audience and states, Ye men of Israel. Contextually, this could hardly be the Church.<\/p>\n
Acts 2:36 This is the same audience as the above reference.<\/p>\n
Acts 3:12 Peter is again addressing an unbelieving Jewish audience with the words, Ye men of Israel. As unbelievers, they could hardly be the Church.<\/p>\n
Acts 4:10 Peter clearly has the whole ethnic Israel in view when he declares to all the people of Israel that the lame man was healed in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.<\/p>\n
Acts 4:27 Israel is listed along with the Gentiles as being guilty of the crucifixion. This could hardly be the Church.<\/p>\n
Acts 5:21 A reference to the senate of the children of Israel who were unbelievers and, therefore, not the Church.<\/p>\n
Acts 5:31 Peter offers repentance to Israel. Israel is in unbelief at this point and so is obviously not the Church.<\/p>\n
Acts 5:35 Gamaliel addressing his fellow members of the Sanhedrin states, Ye men of Israel, none of whom were believers.<\/p>\n
Acts 7:23 Stephen is making an historical reference to the children of Israel of the time of Moses.<\/p>\n
Acts 7:37 Same as above.<\/p>\n
Acts 7:42 Same as above.<\/p>\n
Acts 9:15 God declares that Paul will proclaim the gospel to Gentiles and to the children of Israel. This is a reference to Jews who do not believe as yet.<\/p>\n
Acts 10:36 Peter refers to the now historical fact that Jesus came to preach the gospel unto the children of Israel, the majority of whom did not believe the message and so did not constitute the Church.<\/p>\n
Acts 13:16 Paul is addressing an unbelieving Jewish audience when he states, men of Israel.<\/p>\n
Acts 13:17 Paul refers to the historical this people Israel of the time of the Exodus.<\/p>\n
Acts 13:23 Paul mentions the historical fact that the Messiah had come to the Jews in fulfillment of the promise brought unto Israel.<\/p>\n
Acts 13:24 Paul refers to the historical fact that John the Baptist preached repentance to all the people of Israel.<\/p>\n
Acts 21:28 The men of Israel in this verse is the mob who attacked Paul.<\/p>\n
Acts 28:20 Paul declares that he is chained for the hope of Israel, a reference to the Messianic Hope and not the Church.<\/p>\n
Romans 9:4 Paul lists the privileges God gave the Israelites already discussed.<\/p>\n
Romans 9:6 Paul draws a contrast of two Israels: Israel the whole, and believing Israel within Israel the whole. Both Israels comprise Jews only. White some Covenant Theologians wish to make the believing Israel the Church, other Covenant Theologians agree that this verse contrasts Jews who believe and Jews who do not.<\/p>\n
Romans 9:27 Another contrast between unbelieving Israel and the believing remnant.<\/p>\n
Romans 9:31 A reference to unbelieving Israel who did not arrive at that law.<\/p>\n
Romans 10:19 Paul declares that Israel received the message, but did not accept it.<\/p>\n
Romans 10:21 God\u2019s hands are stretched out to unbelieving Israel still.<\/p>\n
Romans 11:1 Paul refers to himself as an Israelite nationally and ethnically.<\/p>\n
Romans 11:2 Paul makes an historical reference to the fact that Elijah pleaded with God against Israel because of Israel\u2019s unbelief.<\/p>\n
Romans 11:7 Paul again draws a contrast between Israel the whole that failed to obtain what she was seeking for with the remnant, the election, that did.<\/p>\n
Romans 11:25 Paul speaks of the blindness that had befallen Israel.<\/p>\n
Romans 11:26 The prophecy that all Israel will be saved. Covenant Theologians are split on the meaning of this verse. Generally speaking, Covenant Amillennialists see this as a reference to the Church, while Covenant Postmillennialists and Covenant Premillennialists see it as a reference to national ethnic Israel.<\/p>\n
1 Corinthians 10:18 The Israel after the flesh is obviously national ethnic Israel.<\/p>\n
2 Corinthians 3:7 An historical reference to the children of Israel at the time of Moses.<\/p>\n
2 Corinthians 3:13 Same as above.<\/p>\n
2 Corinthians 11:22 Paul refers to both unbelieving Jews and to himself as Israelites.<\/p>\n
Galatians 6:16 Paul\u2019s reference to the Israel of God which is the only reference used by all Covenant Theologians to prove that the Church is called Israel. This verse will be discussed in detail below.<\/p>\n
Ephesians 2:12 The commonwealth of Israel is contrasted with the Gentiles and with the one new man which is the Church.<\/p>\n
Philippians 3:5 Paul refers to himself as coming from the stock of Israel, an obvious reference to his national ethnic origins.<\/p>\n
Hebrews 8:8, 10 A quotation of the New Covenant of Jeremiah.<\/p>\n
Hebrews 11:22 An historical reference to the Israel of the Exodus.<\/p>\n
Revelation 7:4 A reference to the twelve tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n
Revelation 21:12 Same as above.<\/p>\n
The above list is the total number of times that Israel is mentioned in the New Testament and it is obvious even to Covenant Theologians that the vast majority of the times it refers to national ethnic Israel. In fact, only three passages are used by Covenant Theologians to try to prove their Church-equals-Israel equation. On two of these, Romans 9:6 and 11:26, they are not unanimous, for even some Covenant Theologians see these verses as speaking of national ethnic Israel. The only one verse on which all Covenant Theologians are unanimous is Galatians 6:16. This is the one and only verse that even comes close to saying what Covenant Theologians want it to say. Therefore, it will be given its own separate treatment.<\/p>\n
c. The Israel of God of Galatians 6:16<\/p>\n
The purpose of this section is to present a dispensational view of Galatians 6:16, the only passage produced by all Covenant Theologians as evidence that the Church is the spiritual Israel, or that Gentile believers become spiritual Jews. The verse does not prove their case. The passage reads:<\/p>\n
And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.<\/p>\n
The Book of Galatians is concerned with Gentiles who were attempting to attain salvation through the law. The ones deceiving them were Judaizers, who were Jews demanding adherence to the Law of Moses. To them, a Gentile had to convert to Judaism before he qualified for salvation through Christ. In verse 15, Paul states that the important thing for salvation is faith, resulting in the new man. He also mentions two elements: circumcision and uncircumcision. This refers to two groups of people: Jews and Gentiles, two groups already mentioned by these very terms in 2:7\u20139:<\/p>\n
\u2026 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowhsip, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; \u2026<\/p>\n
In verse 16, Paul then pronounces a blessing on members of the two groups who would follow this rule of salvation through faith alone. The first group is the them, the uncircumcision, the Gentile Christians to and of whom he had devoted most of the epistle. The second group is the Israel of God. These are the circumcision, the Jewish believers who, in contrast with the Judaizers, followed the rule of salvation by grace through faith alone. Covenant Theologians must ignore the primary meaning of kai which separates the two groups in the verse in order to make them both the same group.
\nIn a recent work, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, former professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary, has done a detailed study of Galatians 6:16. In his introduction, Johnson makes the following observation:<\/p>\n
In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there remains persistent support for the contention that the term Israel may refer properly to Gentile believers in the present age.\u2026 the primary support is found in Galatians 6:16 \u2026<\/p>\n
I cannot help but think that dogmatic considerations loom large in the interpretation of Galatians 6:16. The tenacity with which this application of \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d to the church is held in spite of a mass of evidence to the contrary leads one to think that the supporters of the view believe their eschatological system, usually an amillennial scheme, hangs on the reference of the term to the people of God, composed of both believing Jews and Gentiles. Amillennialism does not hang on this interpretation, but the view does appear to have a treasured place in amillennial exegesis.<\/p>\n
In speaking of the view that the term refers to ethnic Israel, a sense that the term Israel has in every other of its more than sixty-five uses in the New Testament and in its fifteen uses in Paul, in tones almost emotional William Hendriksen, the respected Reformed commentator, writes, \u201cI refuse to accept that explanation.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n
What I am leading up to is expressed neatly by D. W. B. Robinson in an article written about twenty years ago: \u201cThe glib citing of Gal. 6:16 to support the view that \u2018the church is the new Israel\u2019 should be vigorously challenged. There is weighty support for a limited interpretation.\u201d We can say more than this, in my opinion. There is more than weighty support for a more limited interpretation. There is overwhelming support for such. In fact, the least likely view among several alternatives is the view that \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d is the church.<\/p>\n
Johnson presents three views concerning this verse. Only the first insists that the Israel of God is the Church as a whole while the other two limit it to Jewish believers. The first view is described as follows:<\/p>\n
The first is the claim that \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d is simply a term descriptive of the believing church of the present age.\u2026 The Israel of God is the body who shall walk by the rule of the new creation, and they include believing people from the two ethnic bodies of Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n
The basis for the first view is:<\/p>\n
The list of names supporting this view is impressive, although the bases of the interpretation are few and feeble, namely, the claim that the kai \u2026 before the term \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d is an explicative or appositional kai; \u2026 and the claim that if one sees the term \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d a believing ethnic Israel, they would be included in the preceding clause, \u201cAnd those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them.\u201d<\/p>\n
Johnson rejects this view on three grounds. The first is for grammatical and syntactical reasons for which there are two. The first is that this view must resort to a secondary or lesser meaning of kai:<\/p>\n
It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a reminder of a basic, but often neglected, hermeneutical principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological considerations, we should avoid the rarer grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense.<\/p>\n
Because the latter usage serves well the view that the term \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d is the church, the dogmatic concern overcame grammatical usage. An extremely rare usage has been made to replace the common usage, even in spite of the fact that the common and frequent usage of and makes perfectly good sense in Galatians 6:16.<\/p>\n
Second, Johnson points out that if Paul\u2019s intention was to identify the them as being the Israel of God, then the best way of showing this was to eliminate the kai altogether. As shown earlier, this was exactly what Hendriksen wanted to do by leaving kai untranslated. The very presence of the kai argues against the them being the Israel of God. As Johnson notes, \u201cPaul, however, did not eliminate the kai.\u201d
\nThe second ground for rejecting this view is for exegetical considerations, which deals with context and usage. Concerning usage, Johnson states:<\/p>\n
From the standpoint of biblical usage this view stands condemned. There is no instance in biblical literature of the term Israel being used in the sense of the church, or the people of God as composed of both believing ethnic Jews and Gentiles. Nor, on the other hand, as one might expect if there were such usage, does the phrase ta ethn\u00e9 (KJV, \u201cthe Gentiles\u201d) ever mean the non-Christian world specifically, but only the non-Jewish peoples, although such are generally non-Christians. Thus, the usage of the term Israel stands overwhelmingly opposed to the first view.<\/p>\n
The usage of the terms Israel and the church in the early chapters of the book of Acts is in complete harmony, for Israel exists there alongside the newly formed church, and the two entities are kept separate in terminology.<\/p>\n
For those who would cite Romans 9:6 as evidence, Johnson shows that this verse is no support for such a view for the distinction is between Jews who believe and Jews who do not:<\/p>\n
\u2026 Paul is here speaking only of a division within ethnic Israel. Some of them are believers and thus truly Israel, whereas others, though ethnically Israelites, are not truly Israel, since they are not elect and believing \u2026 No Gentiles are found in the statement at all.<\/p>\n
Even many Covenant Theologians have agreed with this view of Romans 9:6 and do not use it to support their view of Galatians 6:16. As for context, Johnson observes:<\/p>\n
On the contrary, the apostle is concerned with correcting the gospel preached to the Galatians by the Judaizers, particularly their false contention that it was necessary to be circumcised to be saved and to observe as Christians certain requirements of the law of Moses in order to remain in divine favor \u2026 The apostle makes no attempt whatsoever to deny that there is a legitimate distinction of race between Gentile and Jewish believers in the church.\u2026 There is a remnant of Jewish believers in the church according to the election of grace.\u2026 This approach fails to see that Paul does not say there is neither Jew nor Greek within the church. He speaks of those who are \u201cin Christ.\u201d \u2026 But Paul also says there is neither male nor female, nor slave nor free man in Christ. Would he then deny sexual differences within the church? Or the social differences in Paul\u2019s day? Is it not plain that Paul is not speaking of national or ethnic difference in Christ, but of spiritual status? In that sense there is no difference in Christ.<\/p>\n
The third ground for rejecting this view is theological:<\/p>\n
\u2026 there is no historical evidence that the term Israel was identified with the church before A.D. 160. Further, at that date there was no characterization of the church as \u201cthe Israel of God.\u201d In other words, for more than a century after Paul there was no evidence of the identification.<\/p>\n
Johnson\u2019s summary concerning the rejection of the first view is:<\/p>\n
To conclude the discussion of the first interpretation, it seems clear that there is little evidence\u2014grammatical, exegetical, or theological\u2014that supports it. On the other hand, there is sound historical evidence against the identification of Israel with believing or unbelieving Gentiles. The grammatical usage of kai is not favorable to the view, nor is the Pauline or New Testament usage of Israel Finally, \u2026 the Pauline teaching in Galatians contains a recognition of national distinctions in the one people of God.<\/p>\n
The second view is that the Israel of God is the believing Jewish remnant within the Church. This is Johnson\u2019s own view and is the common dispensational view. Johnson describes this view as follows:<\/p>\n
The second of the important interpretations of Galatians 6:16 and \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d is the view that the words refer simply to believing ethnic Israelites in the Christian church. Does not Paul speak of himself as an Israelite (cf. Rom. 11:1)? And does not the apostle also speak of \u201ca remnant according to God\u2019s gracious choice\u201d (cf. 11:5), words that plainly in the context refer to believing Israelites? What more fitting thing could Paul write, it is said, in a work so strongly attacking Jewish professing believers, the Judaizers, than to make it most plain that he was not attacking the true believing Jews? Judaizers are anathematized, but the remnant according to the election of grace are \u201cthe Israel of God.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n
Perhaps this expression, \u201cthe Israel of God,\u201d is to be contrasted with his expression in 1 Corinthians 10:18, \u201cIsrael after the flesh\u201d (KJV), as the true, believing Israel versus the unbelieving element, just as in Romans 9:6 the apostle distinguishes two Israels, one elect and believing, the other unbelieving, but both ethnic Israelites (cf. vv. 7\u201313).<\/p>\n
Johnson supports this view on the same three grounds that he rejected the first view. On grammatical and syntactical grounds, Johnson states that \u201cthere are no grammatical, or syntactical considerations that would be contrary\u201d to this view and, furthermore, the \u201ccommon sense of kai as continuative, or conjunctive is followed.\u201d In other words, it uses the primary meaning of kai.<\/p>\n
On exegetical grounds Johnson states:<\/p>\n
Exegetically the view is sound, since \u201cIsrael\u201d has its uniform Pauline ethnic sense. And further, the apostle achieves a very striking climactic conclusion. Drawing near the end of his \u201cbattle-epistle\u201d with its harsh and forceful attack on the Judaists and its omission of the customary words of thanksgiving, Paul tempers his language with a special blessing for those faithful believing Israelites who, understanding the grace of God and its exclusion of any human works as the ground of redemption, had not succumbed to the subtle blandishments of the deceptive Judaizers. They, not the false men from Jerusalem, are \u201cthe Israel of God,\u201d or, as he calls them elsewhere, \u201cthe remnant according to the election of grace\u201d (cf. Rom. 11:5).<\/p>\n
As for theological grounds, Johnson states:<\/p>\n
And theologically the view is sound in its maintenance of the two elements within the one people of God, Gentiles and ethnic Jews. Romans 11 spells out the details of the relationship between the two entities from Abraham\u2019s day to the present age and on to the fulfillment in the future of the great unconditional covenantal promises made to the patriarchs.<\/p>\n
The third view agrees with the second, that the Israel of God must refer to Jewish believers and not the Church as a whole but sees this Jewish remnant as still future:<\/p>\n
The third of the interpretations is the view that the expression \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d is used eschatologically and refers to the Israel that shall turn to the Lord in the future in the events that surround the second advent of our Lord. Paul would then be thinking along the lines of his well-known prophecy of the salvation of \u201call Israel\u201d in Romans 11:25\u201327.<\/p>\n
The third view \u2026 takes the term \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d to refer to ethnic Israel but locates their blessing in the future.\u2026<\/p>\n
Johnson has no major objections to the third view for \u201cgrammatically and syntactically this last option is sound.\u201d Theologically, this view is also sound for:<\/p>\n
\u2026 the view harmonizes with the important Pauline teaching that there are two kinds of Israelites, a believing one and an unbelieving one.<\/p>\n
The only real problem is exegetical since \u201c\u2026 the eschatological perspective \u2026 has not been one of the major emphases of the Galatian epistle as a whole \u2026\u201d However, Johnson allows for the exegetical possibility of this view for the wider context did mention the Abrahamic Covenant and the Kingdom of God.
\nThe second view is probably the best. While the third is biblically acceptable, the first view is not. Johnson concludes:<\/p>\n
If there is an interpretation that totters on a tenuous foundation, it is the view that Paul equates the term \u201cthe Israel of God\u201d with the believing church of Jews and Gentiles. To support it, the general usage of the term Israel in Paul, in the New Testament, and in the Scriptures as a whole is ignored. The grammatical and syntactical usage of the conjunction kai is strained and distorted\u2014and the rare and uncommon sense accepted when the usual sense is unsatisfactory\u2014only because it does not harmonize with the presuppositions of the exegete. And to compound matters, in the special context of Galatians and the general context of the Pauline teaching, especially as highlighted in Romans 11, Paul\u2019s primary passages on God\u2019s dealings with Israel and the Gentiles, are downplayed.\u2026 the doctrine that the church of Gentile and Jews is the Israel of God rests on an illusion. It is a classic case of tendentious exegesis.<\/p>\n
For Dispensational Israelology, the conclusion is that the Church is never called, and is not, a \u201cspiritual Israel\u201d or a \u201cnew Israel.\u201d The term Israel is either used of the nation or the people as a whole, or of the believing remnant within. It is never used of the Church in general or of Gentile believers in particular.<\/p>\n
d. The Messianic Jewish Identity: Two False Concepts<\/p>\n
Two false views, which only tend to confuse the issue, are circulating among many Christians. One false view is that Gentiles, when they become believers in Christ, become \u201cspiritual Jews.\u201d The other is that when a Jew and a Gentile become believers in Christ, all distinctions between the two are erased. The Gentile loses his \u201cGentilism,\u201d to coin a word, and the Jew his Jewishness, for there is no difference between the two whatsoever. Such a view is consistent with Covenant Theology. It is totally inconsistent with Dispensationalism. Because of a poor theology of Israel Present, even many Dispensationalists hold these views. Therefore, they must be carefully dealt with.<\/p>\n
(1) Gentile Christians are Spiritual Jews<\/p>\n
The first false view is that Gentiles become \u201cspiritual Jews\u201d upon believing in Christ. Logically, if believing Jews are spiritual Jews and believing Gentiles are spiritual Jews, then in the Christian realm there are no distinctions, since all are \u201cspiritual Jews.\u201d Yet the Bible presents no such picture.<\/p>\n
(a) The Meaning of Spirituality<\/p>\n
Perhaps the greatest problem with the term \u201cspiritual Jew\u201d is the use of the word \u201cspiritual\u201d to indicate some kind of national or racial transformation of the Gentile to a Jew. However, the Bible never uses \u201cspiritual\u201d in that sense. Dr. Charles Ryrie points out that three things are involved in the biblical teaching on spirituality: regeneration, the Holy Spirit, and time. This means that spirituality only involves the believer; it is produced by the Holy Spirit, who brings the believer into a mature relationship with God; and, obviously, this takes time. As Dr. Ryrie states, \u201cSpirituality is a grownup relation to the Holy Spirit.\u201d A spiritual person is a believer who is under the control of the Holy Spirit. It is nothing more than that. If a Gentile is under the Spirit\u2019s control, he is a spiritual Gentile. Likewise, a Jew who is under the Spirit\u2019s control is a spiritual Jew. There is no crossing of national lines. A Gentile remains a Gentile and a Jew remains a Jew; their spirituality is based on their relationship to the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
(b) Biblical Passages Used<\/p>\n
Some will argue that all this is mere semantics and will use certain biblical texts to show that in some way Gentiles become Jews, whether by a spiritual transformation or by some other mystical act. One of these is Galatians 3:6\u20139:<\/p>\n
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.<\/p>\n
Thus, if Gentile believers become the children of Abraham by faith, does that not make them \u201cspiritual Jews?\u201d Not at all. Even in the physical realm not all t
\ndescendants of Abraham as Jews, but in no way can they be classified as Jews. What is true of the physical is also true of the spiritual realm; being children of Abraham by faith is not enough to make one a Jew.
\nWhat then is the meaning of this passage? To begin with, it should be noted that the context is concerned with the question of whether salvation is by works or by grace through faith. The Hebrew concept of \u201cchildren\u201d or \u201csons\u201d often has the meaning of \u201cfollowers.\u201d The point is that Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of faith and not on that of works. The true followers of Abraham, then, are those who are considered righteous on the same basis as Abraham, who practiced faith rather than works to attain salvation. The Gentile Galatians were never said to become Jews, but rather children of Abraham. Being a child of Abraham alone is not enough to make one a Jew. As shown earlier, one must be a child of Jacob to be a Jew.
\nAnother verse often used is Galatians 3:29:<\/p>\n
And if ye are Christ\u2019s than are ye Abraham\u2019s seed, heirs according to promise.<\/p>\n
Since Gentiles become part of the seed of Abraham, does this not in some way make them spiritual Jews? Again the answer is negative; there are members of the physical seed of Abraham who are not Jews. The same is true in the spiritual realm. The meaning of this verse can best be understood if compared with Ephesians 2:11\u201313 and 3:6:<\/p>\n
Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.<\/p>\n
To wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.<\/p>\n
These Ephesians passages clarify what is meant by the Galatians statement of becoming heirs to the promise. It does not mean that Gentile believers become Jews in a mystical way, but rather that they become partakers in the spiritual blessings of the Jewish covenants and receive this privilege by faith. This act does not make them spiritual Jews but spiritual Gentiles. Even by being partakers, they do not share in all the facets of the covenants, but only in the spiritual blessings contained in them. Things such as inheritance of the land and circumcision, among others, are not appropriated by believing Gentiles. These elements are exclusively for the Jew.
\nIt should be noted that the term seed of Abraham is used in four different senses in the Scriptures. First, it refers to the physical seed of Abraham. This is the natural seed who are physical descendants of Abraham. While primarily it would be a reference to Jews, it would also include the Arabs. The point is that not all physical descendants of Abraham are Jews. In fact, most of them are Arabs. In the Old Testament, however, the term always refers to the physical descendants of Abraham who are Jews. However, the seed of Abraham is not equal to Israel; the seed of Abraham by Itself does not mean that the seed is Israel. Second, it refers to the Messiah who is the unique individual Seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16\u201317). Third, the believers today, the Church is the spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29). This seed includes Jews who are physical descendants of Abraham and Gentiles who are not physical descendants of Abraham who have Abraham\u2019s faith. The question is: is the spiritual seed of Abraham ever called Israel? The answer is: No! The spiritual seed are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings, but are never said to become partakers of the physical, material, or national promises. Fourth, the term seed of Abraham is sometimes synonymous with the Remnant of Israel and is a reference to Jewish believers (Isa. 41:8; Rom. 9:6; Heb. 2:16). Only some of the spiritual seed then are truly Israel: the Jewish believers who are also part of ethnic Israel and the Israel of God. But the spiritual seed of Abraham as a unit is never referred to as Israel.
\nWhat Covenant Theologians need to prove their case once and for all is a statement that all believers are of \u201cthe seed of Jacob\u201d; this would go a long way to prove that the Church is spiritual Israel or that Gentile Christians are spiritual Jews. This is exactly what they do not have. Not all physical descendants of Abraham are Jews, but all physical descendants of Jacob are. The very term Israel originated with Jacob and not Abraham. If there was even one verse that clearly showed that the Church is the seed of Jacob, Covenant Theologians would then establish one of their key contentions. This they cannot do. They only resort to passages which speak of the seed of Abraham which, by itself, is insuffient to prove their contention.
\nThe third passage for this idea is Romans 2:28\u201329:<\/p>\n
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.<\/p>\n
Since a true Jew is someone who is so inwardly, does not a believing Gentile meet that standard and so inwardly at least become a Jew? To say this of Romans 2:28\u201329 is to ignore the structure of Romans. The basic outline of the first three chapters is as follows:<\/p>\n
Salutation
\n1:1\u20137
\nIntroduction
\n1:8\u201315
\nTheme
\n1:16\u201317
\nThe World Under Condemnation
\n1:18\u20133:30
\nGentiles
\n1:18\u20132:16
\nJews
\n2:17\u20133:20
\nConclusion
\n3:21\u201330<\/p>\n
The section in which 2:28\u201329 is found is strictly a Jewish context. The Gentiles are nowhere in view, for Paul has finished with them in 2:16. This verse can be better understood if taken as the words of a Jewish believer speaking to unbelieving Jews. In doing so he is using a play upon words. \u201cJudaism\u201d and \u201cJew\u201d have the root meaning of \u201cpraise.\u201d What this Christian Jew is saying to non-Christian Jews is that outward Judaism is not enough to make one righteous before God; this requires a \u201cJudaism\u201d of God. The verse can be paraphrased, \u201cWhose Judaism is not of men, but of God.\u201d The true Jews are Jews who are so both outwardly and inwardly.
\nWith this brief introduction, it would be wise to look at the greater context of these verses in Romans 2:17\u20133:9. This section of Romans can be divided into five parts.
\nThe first division concerns the privileges of Jewishness in 2:17\u201320:<\/p>\n
But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth \u2026<\/p>\n
Verses 17\u201318 spell out the privileges that the Jewish people have. However, privileges carry with them greater responsibilities. The privileges are fivefold. First, he bears the name of a Jew. The very word Jew comes from the word Judah, which means \u201cpraise.\u201d It is an honorable name which carries within it the concept of the praise of God. Second, he rests upon the law. The law was given not to the Gentiles but to the Jews. The law carried the greatest revelation of God up to that time, so the Jew had revelation. Third, he glories in God. Only the Jew worshipped the one true God. The pagan Gentile world (1:18\u201332) and the cultured Gentile world (2:1\u201316) both worshipped a number of deities, a number of gods; but the Jews alone as a nation worshipped the one true God and gloried in it. Fourth, he knows His will. In the Greek text there is an article, they knew the will, signifying that the Jews had a knowledge of the divine will. That, too, was a privilege. And, fifth, he approves the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law. The law taught them what the right things were. The Jewish people had these five privileges, though the privileges themselves are not the basis for righteousness. Having these five privileges of verses 17\u201318 led to claims of personal superiority (vv. 19\u201320). These were based upon the law. In other words, having these privileges should have made the Jews evangelists among the Gentiles, but instead of going out evangelizing the Gentiles, they tended to simply claim a position of superiority. These claims were also fivefold. First, they became confident that they were a guide to the blind. Second, they claimed to be a light to them that lived in darkness; and, from the Old Testament, those who dwelled in the darkness were Gentiles. They claimed to be a light to the Gentiles. This is what they should have been, but it was also one of their failings. Third, he considered himself to be the corrector of the fools. In the Old Testament the fool was the person who said there is no God. In the Graeco-Roman world there were many who claimed to be atheists, and the Jew felt himself to be a corrector of atheism. Fourth, he felt that he was a teacher of babes. Those Gentiles who did become proselytes to Judaism were being taught by them. Fifth, they had in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth. The law aimed at knowledge and truth, and indeed they were correct in saying that the law contained the truth. The trouble is, it had been so terribly reinterpreted through Pharisaic Judaism that it no longer carried the teaching it was intended to.
\nThe second division deals with the practices of the Jews that caused them to fall short of God\u2019s righteous standards in 2:21\u201324:<\/p>\n
\u2026 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man shall not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples? thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.<\/p>\n
Paul described the practices of Jewish people, and showed that by these actions they had fallen short of the righteous demands of the law itself. The way he did this is by asking a series of rhetorical questions, all of which required positive answers. By asking these questions, Paul sought to show that the responsibility that came with the privileges mentioned earlier had not been fulfilled. He was not denying that the Jewish people have these privileges; indeed they do. But privileges carry with them responsibilities and they had failed to fulfill these. The form of the questions in the Greek text demands that all of them have affirmative answers. By implying affirmative answers, he showed that the Jewish people, like the Gentiles, both pagan and cultured, have fallen short of God\u2019s righteous standards. First, \u201cyou that teach others, do you not teach yourselves?\u201d While mentally they were teaching themselves, by application they were not carrying out what was demanded. Second, \u201cYou who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?\u201d The answer has to be yes, some were guilty of stealing. Third, \u201cYou who say a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?\u201d The answer is yes, because adultery is not merely the act. One violates the righteousness of the law by also lusting. Jesus taught in Matthew 5\u20137 that the demands of the law were not only external conformity, but also internal conformity. While one does not violate the letter of the law until he commits the act of adultery, he does violate the righteousness of the law by lusting. Fourth, \u201cYou who abhor idols, do you rob temples?\u201d Gentiles often kept money in idol temples, and this money was supposed to be guarded by the idols. It was Jewish responsibility to show the worthlessness of idolatry, but did not do it. Fifth, \u201cYou who glory in the law, do you by transgression of the law dishonor it?\u201d Again, the answer is yes. It is one thing to glory about having the law, but it is quite another to fulfill it. They were guilty of transgressing the law. Verse 24 declares the result: God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Here Paul quotes Isaiah 52:5 from the Septuagint translation to show that as a result of Jewish practice in the Diaspora, the God of the Jews is being blasphemed among the Gentiles. This was not true of all Jews, but it was true of many. Again, he emphasized that the Jews are also guilty. All Jews, like all Gentiles, are not equally guilty of the sins attributed to them, but all have fallen short of God\u2019s righteousness. Much of what Paul said here is also based upon Ezekiel 36:20\u201321.
\nThe third division concerns the position of the Jew in 2:25\u201329 in which Paul contrasts between mere outward conformity and inward conformity:<\/p>\n
For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.<\/p>\n
What Paul was dealing with in this passage was the Pharisaic concept that all who were circumcised would definitely make it into God\u2019s kingdom. Paul cited privileges which come along with circumcision, but circumcision did not establish the covenant. Rather, circumcision was only the sign of the covenant which was already established. Circumcision did not establish the covenant, but brought blessings which were dependent upon obedience. If the Jewish person pleads exemption from judgment because he is a member of the covenant nation as is shown by his circumcision, it is then shown that the only way judgment could be alleviated is by keeping the law. The mere act of circumcision does not exempt the Jew from judgment if he fails to keep the law. Circumcision avails only if the law is kept; but mere ritual will not bring justification. Paul pointed out that circumcision by itself will not save. Just as baptism does not save any Gentile, circumcision will not save any Jew. Jeremiah taught that circumcision without reality is uncircumcision. Paul taught the other side of the coin: uncircumcision with reality is circumcision. In verse 25 he spells out the principle: a rite without reality is unrighteousness. A Jew cannot be saved by his circumcision since he could not keep the law anyway. Verse 26 points out that reality without rite is righteousness. If a Gentile did keep the law, but lacked circumcision, the lack of circumcision would not condemn him. Verse 27 states that, in fact, the righteous uncircumcision will judge the unrighteous circumcision. The morality of the uncircumcised Gentile can judge the immorality of the circumcised Jew.
\nHaving said this and having pointed out that circumcision cannot save because ritual does not bring justification, he showed, in verses 28\u201329, why circumcision itself does not avail. Mere physical birth cannot save. Mere physical circumcision does not save either. Circumcision is only outward, whereas God demands a circumcision which is of the heart. Circumcision of the flesh only meant outward circumcision; but circumcision of the flesh and heart meant both outward and inward circumcision. Then he states, whose praise is not of men but of God. Here Paul plays upon the meaning of certain words. Again, the term Jew has the root meaning of \u201cpraise.\u201d Therefore, verse 29 can be paraphrased, \u201cwhose Jewishness is not of men but of God.\u201d The real meaning of Jewishness is the praise of God. Therefore, a true Jew is a Jew who is one both outwardly and inwardly and not outwardly only.
\nWhat this passage does not teach is that Gentiles become spiritual Jews. Paul already discussed the Gentiles in 1:18\u20132:16 and as of 2:16 he completed his discussion on the Gentile question. In 2:17\u20133:20 he is discussing the Jewish question. What he does here is the same thing he will do in Romans 9\u201311: he distinguishes between Jews who do not believe and Jews who do believe. This is not a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, nor between Israel and the Church, but between the remnant and the non-remnant, between the Jewish believer and the Jewish unbeliever. He is showing that a Jew who is not a believer, whose Jewishness is merely outward, is not exempt from divine judgment for he too has fallen short of the righteousness of God. He has had greater revelation, but that carries with it greater responsibility to that revelation. His failure to keep the law shows that he is not living up to the righteous standard of God. Therefore, he, like the Gentile, has fallen short of God\u2019s righteous standards. He, like the Gentile, therefore, is under divine condemnation of sin. Paul points out that the true Jew is not a Jew who has only outward circumcision. A true Jew is a \u201ccompleted\u201d Jew, a \u201cfull\u201d Jew, one who has had both types of circumcision, outward and inward.
\nThese verses must be kept in their context, which is that he is dealing with Jews and making a distinction between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. He is not teaching that every Gentile Christian is a spiritual Jew. Rather, he is teaching that every Jew is not a full Jew. A completed Jew is one who has had both circumcisions, the circumcision which is outward in obedience to the Abrahamic Covenant, and an inward circumcision of the heart as an act of obedience to the New Covenant.
\nMcClain comes to the same conclusion:<\/p>\n
Paul shows that there is such a thing as being a Jew merely in outward form. But God demands an inward reality and would not recognize any man as a Jew unless he has that. Some people think this statement teaches that every Christian is a Jew, but what it really teaches is that every Jew is not a Jew. No man can be a Jew unless he is born outwardly as a son of Abraham, and also inwardly in spirit; therefore, a man born only outwardly of Abraham is not a true Jew.<\/p>\n
A true Jew, a full Jew, is a Jew who is a Jew both outwardly and inwardly. Outward circumcision deals with the issues of the flesh, the letter, and the mind. Inward circumcision deals with the issues of the heart, the spirit, and God. Outwardly, it is the circumcision of the flesh; inwardly it is the circumcision of the heart. Outwardly, one is concerned only with the letter of the law (external conformity to the law); but inwardly, one is concerned with the spirit of the law; concerned not merely with external conformity but with internal conformity to the righteousness which the law demands. Outwardly, one is concerned only with serving the law with the mind; but inwardly, it is serving God by the power of the Holy Spirit.
\nIn the fourth division, Paul discussed the promise to the Jews in 3:1\u20138. In this section he anticipated the possibility of an objection. If what Paul said in 2:17\u201329 is true, that the Jews are also under condemnation for they have fallen short of God\u2019s righteousness, it would then seem that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been wiped out. If the sinful Jew is on the same level as the sinful Gentile in regard to the wrath of God, what remains of the privileges that God gave to the Jewish people? Paul gave a very brief answer here, but he gave a more detailed answer in Romans 9\u201311. Basically, the answer is that Paul is not teaching that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been erased; rather, in the area of salvation there is no distinction. Jews are sinners as much as Gentiles are sinners. Both Jews and Gentiles have fallen short of God\u2019s righteous standards. Both are in need of salvation in the same way, i.e., by grace through faith in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. In other areas distinctions do remain, but not in the area of how one is saved.
\nIn this section Paul deals with a total of three objections followed by three answers. The first objection and answer is in verses 1\u20132:<\/p>\n
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.<\/p>\n
The first objection is: What happened to the Jewish covenant position? Have they lost their privilege as a covenant nation? The answer is, no, there are still many privileges to being a Jew. The privileges, Paul said, are much every way for the promises of God to the Jews are still valid. At this point he mentioned only one privilege, but he listed more in Romans 9\u201311. The chief privilege is that they (that is, the Jewish people) were intrusted with the oracles of God. God has chosen to reveal Himself through the Jewish people only. That is why every writer (including Luke) had to be a Jew. The oracles of God contain promises to the Jews which have not as yet been fulfilled. As pointed out earlier, the material blessings are still exclusively owned by the Jews. While the Gentiles have become partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings, they have not become partakers of Jewish physical and material blessings. There are still privileges to being a Jew. There are distinctions between Jews and Gentiles even within the Body of Christ in other areas outside of salvation; but as far as salvation is concerned, there are no distinctions.
\nThe second objection and answer is in verses 3\u20134:<\/p>\n
For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, and mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment.<\/p>\n
The second objection is: Has not Jewish unbelief cancelled out the promises of God? In other words, has the want of Jewish faith rendered inoperative the faithfulness of God? Notice that Paul clearly said that not all Jews were without faith, but that some were without faith. There will always be Jewish people who will come to saving faith. But has the unbelief of some Jews cancelled out the faithfulness of God? Paul then gave a very sharp answer, using the strongest Greek form of negation: God forbid! or more literally, \u201cMay it never be!\u201d or \u201cPerish the thought!\u201d God\u2019s faithfulness is not dependent upon man\u2019s faithfulness. In fact, God\u2019s faithfulness is proved by mail\u2019s unfaithfulness, for God is faithful to His promises still. One should recoil at any suggestion that God\u2019s promises to the Jews are cancelled because of Jewish unbelief. Yea,\u201d Paul says, let God be found true but every man a liar. Let God be found true relates to God keeping His promised word. Let every man (be) a liar relates to a man who teaches that the promises to the Jewish people are not going to be fulfilled. God will fulfill his promises to the Jews. Paul then quoted Psalm 51:4 which refers to God being pronounced righteous in His judgments by man. When God does fulfill all of His promises through the Jews, God will indeed be declared righteous by man.
\nIn verses 5\u20138 is the third objection and answer:<\/p>\n
But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? and why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose condemnation is just.<\/p>\n
The third objection is: If what Paul has just said is true, that God\u2019s faithfulness will be shown through others, unfaithfulness, why does God judge man if God is proved faithful by man\u2019s sin (v. 5)? Why should not man just be allowed to practice sin so that God could be proved more faithful still? Once again, Paul answers, God forbid! The answer is that man will still be judged, because what Paul said under the second objection and answer is not grounds for disobeying God. It is not grounds for practicing license. From the Godward side, the answer is in verse six: May if never be, because if this argument is followed to its logical conclusion, God will never be allowed to judge anyone. This contradicts the clear revelation that God will judge the world. In verses 7\u20138 is the manward side. Some had accused Paul of antinomianism, meaning he was against law, because he taught righteousness apart from the law; but this he now repudiates. From the manward side, the question is: If sin magnifies God\u2019s grace, why not commit more sin so God can be more gracious still? The answer is that the man who practices evil because of antinomianism is going to be judged, just as much as the man who tries to keep the law is judged when he falls short of it. The answer is that God will judge sin. While God is shown to be more faithful through man\u2019s unfaithfulness, this does not excuse the unfaithfulness; therefore, God must punish sin.
\nIn the fifth division of this passage he draws his conclusion in 3:9:<\/p>\n
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin.<\/p>\n
Are we better than they? meaning, are Jews, in light of their advantages, better than the Gentiles who do not have these advantages? The answer is, not at all. It is now clear that all, both Jews and Gentiles, have fallen short of God\u2019s righteousness; therefore, all need to be saved in the same way, by grace through faith.
\nThe purpose of this lengthy treatment of Romans 2:17\u20133:19 was to put 2:28\u201329 in its proper context. The context shows that Paul is not teaching that Gentile Christians become spiritual Jews, but that not all Jews are true Jews. The distinction is not between Jews and Gentiles, or between Israel and the Church, but between the remnant and the non-remnant, between Jews who believe and Jews who do not. This distinction receives further elaboration in Paul\u2019s Israelology in Romans 9\u201311, to be discussed later in the chapter.<\/p>\n
(2) There is No Difference Between Jews and Gentiles<\/p>\n
The first false view argues against all distinctions by saying that all believers are Jews. The second false view tries to make all believing Jews into non-Jews, usually by employing out of context one or more of three passages having a phrase to the effect that there is neither Jew nor Greek. A careful study of the very same passages in their context will show that the distinction between Jews and Gentiles is erased only in certain areas and not in all. Furthermore, a study of the text in light of related passages clearly indicates that in other areas the distinction is still very much in effect, even within the body of believers.<\/p>\n
(a) Biblical Passages Used<\/p>\n
The first of the three passages used is 1 Corinthians 12:12\u201313:<\/p>\n
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit.<\/p>\n
The clear teaching of this passage is that entrance into the body is by Spirit baptism. This is the only way and it is true for all, Jew and Gentile. There is no difference. This is all that can be deduced from this passage and no more.
\nThe second passage is Galatians 3:28:<\/p>\n
There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.<\/p>\n
The context of this passage deals with the matter of justification by faith. This is the only way anyone can be justified, whether Jew or Gentile. In justification there is no distinction between the two. That alone can be deduced from this passage and no more.
\nThe third passage is Colossians 3:11:<\/p>\n
Where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.<\/p>\n
Again the context is the key to understanding this passage. Verses 5\u201311 are concerned with putting off the old nature and putting on the new nature. This is the true and only way toward maturity and spirituality for any believer, Jew or Gentile. Again, no more than that can be deduced from this passage.
\nThe conclusion is obvious. In the areas of justification, membership in the body, and growth toward maturity, the procedure is the same for Jew and Gentile without distinction. However, this does not mean that in every area the distinctions are forever erased between the two.<\/p>\n
(b) The Evidences for Distinctions<\/p>\n
As stated earlier, the study of these very same passages in light of related passages will show that instead of teaching against all distinctions, the reverse is true. When critics of the Hebrew Christian distinction refer to these three passages, often only the \u201cJew and Greek\u201d statement is cited and the rest is ignored. These verses not only state that there is no difference between Jews and Greeks, but they further state that there is no difference between bond and free, or between male and female. Yet the custom is often to avoid quoting the latter portion for obvious reasons. If one considers what the Bible has to say about the two latter groups, then it is obvious that the three passages do not teach that all distinctions are erased.
\nThere are five passages which deal with the bond and the free: Ephesians 6:5\u20139; Colossians 3:22\u20134:1; 1 Timothy 6:1\u20132; Titus 2:9\u201310; and, 1 Peter 2:18. In all of these passages, the Christian slave is to be in subjection to his master, even when the master is himself a Christian. The Christian master is never commanded to release his Christian slaves, which would be the practical outcome if all distinctions have indeed been erased. The Christian freeman is still a freeman and the Christian slave is still a slave. How then are these passages consistent with the three verses cited earlier? Consistency is no problem. As far as membership in the body, justification, and spirituality are concerned, the way is the same for the freeman and the slave. Once in the body, these distinctions still exist.
\nSeven passages of Scripture clearly show that all distinctions between male and female certainly have not been erased. Subjection is the keynote to them all, as seen in position and function. According to 1 Corinthians 11:3\u201310, the woman should keep her head covered in the assembly while the man should not keep it covered. According to 1 Corinthians 14:34\u201335, women are forbidden to speak in the church. This is to the extent that if she has any questions at all, she is to seek answers from her husband at home. According to Ephesians 5:22\u201325 and Colossians 3:18\u201319, the wife is to be in subjection to the husband, while the husband is admonished to love his wife as the means of subjecting her. According to 1 Timothy 2:11\u201312, women are forbidden to teach men, for in so doing they are exercising authority and overstepping their place of subjection. According to Titus 2:1 and 3\u20135, the teaching of younger women to be in subjection to their own husbands is part of sound doctrine, and violation results in the Word of God being blasphemed. According to 1 Peter 3:1 and 7, the wife must be in subjection to her husband even if he is an unbeliever. On the other hand, the husband must honor his wife. If all distinctions between male and female are erased, there would be no need for all these separate rules and injunctions. Do these passages then contradict the others which indicate no distinction between the male and female? Obviously not. Again, in the areas of membership in the body of Christ, justification, and spiritual maturity, the formula is the same for both. There are not two ways of salvation, one way of salvation for the man and another for the woman. Spiritual maturity does not have separate systems, one for the male and another for the female. Both have entered the body in the same way. Once in the body, the man is still a man, and the woman is still a woman, and they differ in position and function.<\/p>\n
(3) Conclusion<\/p>\n
To summarize, the Bible does not support the idea of Gentiles becoming \u201cspiritual Jews\u201d when they believe. Rather, they are spiritual Gentiles when they are controlled by the Holy Spirit. Spiritual Jews are Jews who believe and who have a proper relationship to the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Bible does not say that all distinctions between Jew and Gentile are erased when they believe. While it is very true that the way of salvation is the same for both, this does not mean that all other distinctions have been eradicated as well, anymore than all distinctions between bond and free and male and female have ceased to exist. The way of salvation, body membership, and spiritual maturity are the same for both Jews and Gentiles. In other areas distinctions remain.<\/p>\n
6. Israel Today<\/p>\n
Covenant Theologians have had a difficult time with the modern State of Israel. Postmillennialist Boettner and Amilliennialist Allis reacted very negatively, and in obvious anti-Semitic overtones, wishing that no such Jewish State existed and wishing it would disappear. Even Covenant Premillennialist Ladd took an ambivalent view, not knowing what, to do with Israel as a state theologically. However, most Dispensationalists have not had this problem. The comments by Dr. Louis Barbieri, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, are typical:<\/p>\n
May 14, 1948, is a day that is burned into the mind of every citizen of the state of Israel. On that day a significant event occurred\u2014a nation that had disappeared for almost two thousand years reappeared as a distinct entity.\u2026<\/p>\n
Truly Israel\u2019s return to the land is a modern-day miracle, one the prophet Ezekiel more than five hundred years before the time of Christ apparently predicted would occur. As recorded in Ezekiel 37, \u2026 The condition of modern-day Israel seems to be precisely what Ezekiel saw in this vision. Israel, dead for almost two thousand years, has returned from the grave.<\/p>\n
But what is her spiritual condition? It would be hard to conclude that Israel as a whole recognizes that her restoration is the result of the hand of God. For whereas a small portion of the nation considers itself \u201corthodox,\u201d the greatest portion would admit to being \u201cagnostic.\u201d \u2026 The overwhelming conclusion among them is that what has happened has been brought about by human hands, and that God, if He truly exists, has had little to do with Israel\u2019s victories. That, too, fits Ezekiel\u2019s prophecy, for God also said that, after He has brought the nation back to the land, \u201cI will put my Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land\u201d (37:14). Yes, Israel possesses the land today, but she clearly is not there in belief. The promise of God is that the nation will believe.<\/p>\n
While Barbieri\u2019s view of modern Israel is typical of most Dispensationalists, it is not true of all, and even some Dispensationalists do not know where the State of Israel fits in theologically. This problem is rooted in a failure to develop a theology of Israel Present. The re-establishment of the Jewish Stats in 1948 has not only thrown a wrench in amillennial thinking, but it has also made a chink in much of premillennial thinking. Amazingly, some Dispensationalists have concluded that the present State of Israel has nothing to do with the fulfillment of prophecy. For some reason the present state somehow does not fit their scheme of things, and so the present state becomes merely an accident of history. On what grounds is the present State of Israel so dismissed? The issue that bothers some Dispensationalists is the fact that not only have the Jews returned in unbelief with regard to the person of Jesus, but the majority of those who have returned are not even Orthodox Jews; in fact, the majority are atheists or agnostics. Certainly, then, Israel does not fit in with all the biblical passages dealing with the return since it is a regenerated nation that the Bible speaks of, and the present State of Israel hardly fits that picture. On these grounds, the present state is dismissed as not being a fulfillment of prophecy.
\nHowever, the real problem is the failure to see that the prophets spoke of two international returns. First, there was to be a regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment, namely the judgment of the Tribulation. This was to be followed by a second worldwide regathering in faith in preparation for blessings, namely the blessings of the messianic age. Once it is recognized that the Bible speaks of two such regatherings, it is easy to see how the present State of Israel fits into prophecy.
\nOne passage clearly dealing with a return in unbelief in preparation for judgment is found in Ezekiel 20:33\u201338:<\/p>\n
As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, surely with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, will I be king over you: and I will bring you out from the peoples, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out; and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there will I enter into judgment with you face to face. Like as I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I enter into judgment with you, saith the Lord Jehovah. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me; I will bring them forth out of the land where they sojourn, but they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am Jehovah.<\/p>\n
In this passage Ezekiel draws a simile between the Exodus and the future return. At the Exodus the entire nation of Israel was brought out of the land of Egypt into the Sinai Peninsula. While in the Wilderness of Sinai, God\u2019s plan for Israel was to accomplish two things: to give them the Law of Moses; and for them to build the Tabernacle through which much of the law could then be observed. After accomplishing these two things, they were to enter into the Promised Land. Because of a series of murmurings and rebellions, God finally entered into judgment with His people at a place called Kadesh Barnea, which was on the border of the Promised Land. The judgment condemned them to forty years of wandering until the entire generation, from the age of twenty upward, except for two men, Joshua and Caleb, died out in the wilderness. Forty years later a whole new nation, a nation born as free men in the wilderness and not as slaves in Egypt, was able to enter the land under Joshua. According to Ezekiel, a similar thing is to occur in the future. God will first regather His people from all over the world where they have been scattered. That this gathering is not in faith, but in unbelief, is seen from the fact that this gathering is with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out. This phrase is repeated twice in verses 33 and 34. This regathering in unbelief occurs after wrath has been poured out on the people. It is no accident that out of the fires of the Nazi Holocaust, the State of Israel was born. Once this gathering has taken place, God will enter into judgment with His people, namely the Tribulation judgments. By means of these judgments the rebels will be purged out. Then there will be a whole new nation, a regenerated nation, that will be able to enter the messianic land of Israel under King Messiah. This passage clearly speaks of a regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment.
\nAnother passage making the same point is found in Ezekiel 22:17\u201322:<\/p>\n
And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, the house of Israel is become dross unto me: all of them are brass and tin and iron and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are the dross of silver. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Because ye are all become dross, therefore, behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. As they gather silver and brass and iron and lead and tin into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my wrath, and I will lay you there, and melt you. Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you with the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof. As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I, Jehovah, have poured out my wrath upon you.<\/p>\n
This passage also speaks of a regathering in preparation for judgment. Furthermore, this passage clearly states that this is a regathering in unbelief, relating it particularly to Jerusalem.
\nWhile primarily dealing with the regeneration of Israel, Ezekiel 36:22\u201324 nevertheless makes it clear that a regathering takes place before the regeneration:<\/p>\n
Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I do not this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for my holy name, which ye have profaned among the nations, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah, saith the Lord Jehovah, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land.<\/p>\n
Another passage dealing with the same question is found in Isaiah 11:11\u201312:<\/p>\n
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord will set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, that shall remain, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.<\/p>\n
The regathering spoken of in this passage is the one in faith in preparation for the Millennial Kingdom. This regathering in faith is specifically stated to be a second international regathering. The question this raises is: when did the first one occur? It cannot refer to the Babylonian return as that was hardly as international as the text demands. Hence, the first international regathering is the one which would be in preparation for Judgment. It is clear that this passage speaks of two international regatherings while emphasizing the second one. The second regathering will be in faith, but not the first.
\nSo far passages have been shown that speak of a regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment as over against other passages that speak of a regathering in faith in preparation for blessing. These passages have not specifically stated that this regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment will occur before the Tribulation period. However, Zephaniah 2:1\u20132 pinpoints the regathering in unbelief as occurring before the Tribulation period:<\/p>\n
Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation that hath no shame; before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of Jehovah come upon you, before the day of Jehovah\u2019s anger come upon you.<\/p>\n
In the preceding section of Zephaniah 1:14\u201318, Zephaniah described some features of a time called the great day of Jehovah, or as other translations have it, \u201cthe day of the Lord.\u201d This is the most common Old Testament name for the Tribulation. In Zephaniah 2:1\u20132, Zephaniah speaks of an event that is to occur before the great day of Jehovah begins. In verse one, the nation of Israel is told to gather together. It is clear from this verse that this is a gathering in unbelief. In verse two, the word before is used three times in relationship to the preceding passage regarding the Tribulation. One of these \u201cbefores\u201d includes the before the day of Jehovah itself. While other texts speak of a regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment, this passage clearly states that this regathering in unbelief will occur before the Tribulation actually begins.
\nAnother line of evidence can be mentioned at this point, but will be developed under Israel Future. It concerns the beginning point of the Tribulation period. The Tribulation begins with the signing of the seven year covenant (and not with the Rapture). This covenant is made between the Antichrist and the leaders of Israel. Therefore, the signing of such a covenant presupposes a Jewish leadership of a Jewish state. Such a Jewish state has to exist before such a covenant can be signed. This demands the existence of a Jewish state before the Tribulation.
\nThe restoration of the Jewish state is a fulfillment of those prophecies which spoke of a regathering in unbelief in preparation for judgment.
\nExcept for a select few, the vast majority of Dispensationalists have been supportive of the State of Israel. Some have gone overboard, virtually giving the State of Israel carte blanche, feeling they must support every decision the Israeli government makes. While this is certainly preferable to the view of those Covenant Theologians who wish that the State of Israel would cease to exist, it is nevertheless unwise. Like any other human nation, Israel will make political mistakes and be guilty of moral lapses. No Dispensationalist should support such things. The failure of Israel to give Jewish believers equal rights and immigration rights to Israel should also be condemned. However, no Dispensationalist can be silent on the issue of Israel\u2019s right to exist or right to the land. Basic support for the Jewish state arises from the very foundation of Dispensationalism.<\/p>\n
7. Romans 9:1\u201311:24, the Remnant of Israel, and the Olive Tree<\/p>\n
The doctrine of the Remnant of Israel teaches that there is always a segment of the Jewish people who are believers. The teaching of the New Testament is that the Remnant of Israel today comprises the Jewish believers in the Messiahship of Jesus. In the New Testament, that doctrine is primarily found in Paul\u2019s Israelology in Romans 9\u201311. There is one other passage on the Remnant of Israel relevant to Israel Present which is 1 Peter 2:1\u201310.<\/p>\n
a. First Peter 2:1\u201310<\/p>\n
By taking Peter\u2019s words in 1:1\u20132 literally, it is clear that the epistle was not written to the Church at large, nor to a body of Gentile believers, but to Jewish believers living outside the land within a majority Gentile population. The term Dispersion is a technical Jewish term for Jews who live outside the land. It is used twice elsewhere: John 7:35 and James 1:1, which all commentators agree refers to the Jews of the Diaspora. There is no reason to make I Peter the exception since it fits well into Peter\u2019s calling as the Apostle to the Circumcision (Gal. 2:7\u20138). Furthermore, Peter keeps making reference to the fact that his readers live among the Gentiles (2:12; 4:3). While many try to make the term Gentiles mean \u201cunbelievers,\u201d that is neither its Jewish usage nor even New Testament usage as a simple look in a concordance will show. Peter is using the term Gentile in its normal usage as meaning \u201cnon-Jew.\u201d Peter is addressing Jewish believers living among a majority Gentile population. Expressions such as vain meaning of life handed down from your fathers (1:18) have clear Jewish overtones distinguishing the Jewish believers from their past lives in Rabbinic Judaism. In this section of the epistle, Peter draws a contrast between the remnant and the non-remnant. His purpose is to show that while the non-remnant has failed in its calling, the remnant has not failed.
\nAfter describing the spiritual state of the remnant (vv. 1\u20133), Peter then deals with the topic of the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence (vv. 4\u201310).
\nThe Messiah Jesus is the living stone who, though rejected by men, is elect and precious with God (v. 4).
\nWith Exodus 19:5\u20136 clearly in his mind, Peter states that the Jewish believers, because of the kind of salvation they have are two things (v. 5). They are, first, living stones and so are part of a spiritual house. This spiritual house is the spiritual House of Israel, the Remnant of Israel, or, in Paul\u2019s words, the Israel of God. Second, the Jewish believers are a holy priesthood. This too was the calling of the nation as a whole. The nation failed, but the Remnant of Israel has not failed and are today offering spiritual sacrifices to the Lord.
\nPeter then goes on to explain the distinction between the remnant and the non-remnant (vv. 6\u20138). He begins with the state of the remnant (vv. 6\u20137a) and quotes Isaiah 28:16 to point out that the chief cornerstone is the Messiah who before God the Father is elect and precious so those who believe in Him will not be shamed (v. 6). He then makes the application (v. 7a) and states that while the Messianic Stone is indeed precious, it is only precious for the remnant. Concerning the non-remnant (vv. 7b\u20138), Peter quotes from Psalm 118:22 (v. 7b) to show that it was already predicted that the Messianic Stone would be rejected by the leaders of Israel. He also quotes Isaiah 8:14 (v. 8a) to show that for the unbeliever, the Messianic Stone was to be the stone of stumbling and the rock of offence. The Isaiah passage was discussed under Israel Past and it was shown that Isaiah dealt with the contrast between the remnant and the non-remnant. Peter concludes with an application (v. 8b): the non-remnant indeed stumbled, for those who rejected the Word were destined to stumble. Isaiah predicted that Immanuel would be the point of division between the remnant and the non-remnant. Peter teaches that this has now taken place and Jesus the Messiah has become that point of division.
\nThe passage concludes with a further description of the status of the remnant (vv. 9\u201310). According to verse five, the Remnant of Israel comprised a spiritual house and a holy priesthood. With Exodus 19:5\u20136 still in mind, Peter now adds four other descriptions to show the position of the remnant in contrast to Israel the whole (v. 9a). First, they are an elect race. This is based on Isaiah 43:20. Being elect shows that they were chosen at God\u2019s initiative (1 Pet. 2:4, 6). This is a reference to their individual election. The use of the term race shows that Peter is also dealing with their national election. The Church, however, is not a race but composed of believers from all races. Second, the Remnant of Israel is a royal priesthood. In verse five they were called a holy priesthood, emphasizing their right to approach the heavenly sanctuary. Now they are also a royal priesthood. Since the High Priest Jesus is a priest-king after the Order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1\u201328), these believers are, therefore, a royal priesthood for they are both priests and kings. For now, they are functioning as priests (Heb. 13:15\u201316), but in the future they will function as kings and will exercise royal kingly authority in the Messianic Kingdom (Rev. 5:10; 20:6). While it is true that all believers comprise a priesthood, the priesthood of all believers cannot legitimately be derived from this passage; but it is taught in Revelation 1:6; 5:10; and 20:6. Third, the believing Jewish remnant is a holy nation. Israel became a nation at Mount Sinai and was called upon to be holy and separated from sin to God. However, the nation as a whole failed while the remnant has not failed. The Church is not a nation (Rom. 10:19), but is comprised of believers from all nations. Fourth, they are a people for God\u2019s own possession. This is not only based on Exodus 19:5\u20136, but also on Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Isaiah 43:21; and Malachi 3:17. While they became a nation at Mount Sinai, they became a people with Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. The remnant is God\u2019s own possession for those Jewish believers were purchased by the blood of the Messiah and so uniquely belong to God (1 Pet. 1:18\u201319).
\nHaving described the status of the remnant in this way, Peter next gives the purpose for their election (v. 9b): to show forth the excellencies of the attributes of the God who called them out of darkness and into His glorious light. They are to proclaim the message to those outside. The background to this concept is Isaiah 43:20\u201321. The section concludes with a reference to Hosea 1:10\u20132:1, 23 (v. 10). Formerly, in times past, they were part of the non-remnant being not my people and without: mercy. Now they are members of the remnant and so are my people and have obtained mercy.
\nTo summarize, Peter is not drawing a distinction between Israel and the Church or between unbelieving Jews and believing Gentiles. The distinction is between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. His point is that while Israel as a whole failed, the believing Remnant of Israel has not failed and so the Remnant of Israel is fulfilling the calling of the nation as a whole. Paul will make the same point in his theology of Israel in Romans 9\u201311.<\/p>\n
b. Romans 9:1\u201311:24<\/p>\n
(1) Introduction<\/p>\n
These chapters of the Book of Romans are sometimes skipped in commentaries on Romans. Such commentators do not take what God says about Israel too seriously and teach that the Church is the new Israel. They, therefore, do not feel that these chapters are important. (Or is it because what Paul has to say here contradicts their theology?) There are commentaries that provide a verse-by-verse, word-by-word commentary that covers chapters 1\u20138, and then skip over to chapters 12\u201316. Chapters 9\u201311 are totally dropped. Other commentaries that do take chapters 9\u201311 somewhat seriously and do comment upon them will often refer to these three chapters as being merely parenthetical and not part of Paul\u2019s main argument. Before moving to the exposition of this passage, there are three things to note by way of introduction.<\/p>\n
(a) The Place of Chapters 9\u201311 in the Book of Romans<\/p>\n
It is always wrong to ignore three whole chapters of Scripture that God has put into the text, because He certainly must have had a reason for revealing it. Furthermore, chapters 9\u201311 are not parenthetical. If anything, they are very pivotal, because these three chapters vindicate God\u2019s righteousness in His relationship to Israel.
\nIn the first eight chapters of the Book of Romans, Paul dealt with the theology of the righteousness of God. After introducing the book in 1:1\u201317, he then spelled out the details of the theology of God\u2019s righteousness. In the first three chapters he pointed out that everyone has fallen short of the righteous standards of God, and that includes all sections of humanity: pagan Gentiles (1:18\u201332); cultured Gentiles (2:1\u201316); and, the Jews (2:17\u20133:18). Paul concludes that all have sinned and have come short of the righteousness of God (3:19\u201331).
\nHaving shown that everyone is a sinner, both Jews and Gentiles, and everyone has fallen short of the righteousness of God, Paul then describes what God has done in order to provide righteousness for men. He provided righteousness through salvation in Jesus the Messiah, and this salvation has three tenses: past, present and future, The past aspect of salvation is justification (4:1\u20135:21). Once one believes, he is justified or declared righteous by God. The present aspect of salvation is sanctification (6:1\u20138:18). Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit in believers\u2019 lives today, conforming the believer more and more into the image of the Son of God. The future aspect of salvation is glorification (8:19\u201339). Glorification is guaranteed in light of the fact that believers have been justified and are being sanctified, and therefore will someday be glorified and be like Him.
\nAt the end of chapter eight, as he concludes the theology of God\u2019s righteousness, he points out that in light of all that God has done for believers in justification, sanctification and glorification, there is absolutely nothing that can separate us from the love of God. Nothing in heaven can separate us, nothing on earth, nothing below the earth, nothing outside of us, nothing inside of us, not even we ourselves can separate us from the love of God.
\nOne would think that Paul, having stated all this, would immediately proceed to deal with the practice of God\u2019s righteousness as he did in Ephesians. In Ephesians 1\u20133, he dealt with theology, and in Ephesians 4\u20136, the practical application of that theology. Yet in the Book of Romans, having spelled out the theology of God\u2019s righteousness, Paul did not immediately proceed to the practice of God\u2019s righteousness. This he does in chapters 12\u201316. Instead, between the theology of (God\u2019s righteousness in chapters 1\u20138 and the practice of God\u2019s righteousness in chapters 12\u201316, he inserted three chapters dealing with God\u2019s righteousness in His relationship with Israel. Why? At the end of chapter eight, Paul concluded that in light of all that God has done, in light of his promises, there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God. At this point, one might object and say: \u201cBut did not Israel have promises from God, and did not God make certain promises and commitments to Israel, which included the national salvation and the worldwide restoration? Yet, the majority of Israel is in a state of unbelief. It does not seem that God\u2019s promises to Israel have been kept. If God\u2019s promises to Israel have not been kept, how can we really believe that there is nothing that can separate us from the love of God, since it seems that Israel has been separated from the love of God?\u201d Therefore, Paul must deal with the question of God\u2019s righteousness in His relationship with Israel.
\nFor this reason, these three chapters should not be ignored as some commentators have chosen to do. Nor should these chapters be viewed merely as parenthetical\u2014not related to his argument. They should be considered pivotal, in that they justify or vindicate God\u2019s righteousness in His relationship with Israel. They form a bridge between the theology of God\u2019s righteousness in chapters 1\u20138 and the practice of God\u2019s righteousness in chapters 12\u201316.<\/p>\n
(b) The Three Questions<\/p>\n
In his development of Israelology in chapters 9\u201311 of the Book of Romans, Paul answers three questions.
\nThe first question is: Why are there so few Jews being saved when the gospel is to the Jew first? In Romans 1:16, Paul wrote that the gospel is to the Jew first, and if that is true, why are so few Jews being saved? To summarize Paul\u2019s answer, he confesses that he has a deep love and sorrow for Israel (9:1\u20135). Paul then teaches that their rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus was not due to a failure of God\u2019s promises (9:6\u201313), nor was their rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus due to an injustice on the part of God (9:14\u201329). The real problem is their own rejection of the righteousness of God (9:30\u201310:21). However, consolation is to be found in the salvation of the remnant in our day, according to the election of grace (11:1\u201310). Consolation should also be seen in the present acceptance of the Gentiles (11:11\u201322). Consolation should also be seen in that in the future all Israel will believe, and there will be a future restoration of Israel (11:23\u201332). Finally, all of these are evidences of the wisdom and the glory of God (11:33\u201336).
\nThe second question is: How do the Gentiles know they can trust God when His promises to Israel have not been fulfilled? That is a logical question in light of what Paul said at the end of chapter eight. To summarize his answer to this question, Paul says three things. First, Israel\u2019s failure is related to spiritual pride and self-sufficiency, and the fault does not lie with God. Second, Israel\u2019s rejection is not complete nor total, because there are Jewish people who did not reject the Messiahship of Jesus. Third, Israel\u2019s rejection is not final; in fact, the nation as a nation will receive the Messiah sometime in the future.
\nThe third question that Paul answers in these chapters is: Has the gospel nullified God\u2019s promises to Israel? He will answer with a very firm, \u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n
(c) The Exposition of Romans 3:1<\/p>\n
The last thing by way of introduction to these three chapters is to point out that in Romans 9\u201311 Paul expounded further upon a statement he made in Romans 3:1: What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way \u2026 Just how much in every way is what Paul deals with in these chapters.<\/p>\n
(2) The Theology of Israel\u2019s Rejection\u20149:1\u201329<\/p>\n
(a) Paul\u2019s Sorrow and Israel\u2019s Privileges\u20149:1\u20135<\/p>\n
In these verses Paul introduces his theme on the theology of Israel by pointing to his own sorrow. He describes his own emotions (vv. 1\u20133) over Israel\u2019s rejection. There was the witness of Paul\u2019s conscience (v. 1) to the fact and it bore witness with the Holy Spirit. Paul, having that strong Jewish and Pharisaic background, realized that the truth had to be affirmed at the mouth of two or three witnesses, so here he presents two witnesses that he really is deeply sorrowed over the issue of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus: his conscience, and the Holy Spirit. Paul\u2019s conscience and the Holy Spirit are bearing witness to something; that he is saying the truth about something. What that \u201csomething\u201d is, is the fact that Paul has great sorrow (v. 2). The Greek word means \u201cgrief,\u201d \u201cto be in a state of mind that is projecting grief.\u201d He also has unceasing pain. This is the physical expression of that mental anguish. Paul can truly testify by his conscience and through the Holy Spirit that he has great mental anguish over Israel, and this mental anguish resulted in physical pain. Paul is that concerned over his own people. Paul then expressed his desire (v. 3): I could wish. In the Greek, this is an imperfect tense; it emphasizes continuous action in time past, which remains unfinished. What he is wishing is that he could be anathema, that he could be set apart for destruction if it would mean Israel\u2019s immediate salvation. In other words, he was willing to go to Hell and to the Lake of Fire if it would bring about Israel\u2019s salvation. This wish was not for the lost in general, but specifically on behalf of the Jewish people who were Paul\u2019s kinsmen according to the flesh. These were not his spiritual brethren, these were his physical brethren, the Jewish people. However, he realized that this was not the way it was going to happen; he was simply expressing a personal desire.
\nPaul next outlined Israel\u2019s privileges and Israel\u2019s prerogatives (vv. 4\u20135). The purpose of listing these privileges and prerogatives was to show that Israel really should have received the Messiah, but did not. This was their fault and not the fault of God. Furthermore, if they did not believe, these privileges and prerogatives did not guarantee their salvation. Altogether Paul listed eight things.
\nFirst, the adoption. This is speaking of Israel\u2019s national adoption (Exod. 4:22) by which Israel became the national son of God. Just as believers are individually children of God by adoption, Israel as a nation is the national son of God. Israel was never disinherited from that position (Isa. 63:16; Jer. 3:17\u201319; 31:9, 20). Second, the glory. Specifically, this is the Shechinah Glory, the visible manifestation of God\u2019s presence, and it belonged to Israel (Exod. 13:20\u201321; 16:10, 36; 40:34\u201338; et al.) Third, the covenants. These covenants are the four unconditional eternal covenants that God made with Israel: the Abrahamic Covenant, the Palestinian Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant. Fourth, law-giving. Specifically, this is the one conditional and temporary covenant God made with Israel: the Mosaic Covenant, which contained the Mosaic Law (Exod. 19:16\u201320:1). Fifth, the service of God, something reaffirmed in Hebrews 9:1\u201310. The service of God included the priesthood, the entire Levitical institution, and all the various offerings. Sixth, the promises. Specifically, these are the messianic promises, the promises of the first coming, of the second coming, of the establishment of Messiah\u2019s kingdom through which He will rule the world righteously\u2014the world in general and Israel in particular. Seventh, the fathers. These are the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Deut. 10:14\u201315; Heb. 11:1\u201312:2). It is through them that the Jewish nation came into being and was established. The biblical definition of a Jew is one who is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The eighth and last thing he mentions that belongs to Israel is the Messiah Himself. Concerning the Messiah, he states three things. First, concerning the flesh, Jesus was born a Jew; so in His humanity, He was a Jew and had a physical relationship to Israel (Matt. 1:1; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 7:14). Second, He was over all, emphasizing His sovereignty. Third, He is God-blessed forever, He is God Who is blessed forever, and that emphasizes His deity. Paul\u2019s claim that the Messiah is Israel\u2019s is something that Jesus Himself affirmed, for He said, I have not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 15:24).<\/p>\n
(b) Israel\u2019s Rejection in Light of Biblical History\u20149:6\u201313<\/p>\n
In verse six, Paul starts this next unit with the word but to show he is about to do some explaining. The problem is not that the word of God has come to naught, that the Word of God or God\u2019s promises have failed. The Word of God and His promises have not failed. Paul then uses biblical history to show that Jews are not heirs of blessing just because they are the natural seed of Abraham. While certain blessings come because of the natural seed, there are other blessings of God which are conditional upon other matters. Spiritual blessings that deal with the issue of salvation are not conditioned purely upon being a natural seed of Abraham. Physical descent by itself was not enough. Physical descent did put one within the scope of the Abrahamic Covenant, but that was not enough for salvation; something else was required. Verse six is the key to this entire unit. The Greek word translated as come to nought means \u201cto fall out\u201d or \u201cto fall from.\u201d It is a Greek word that is used to speak of withering flowers (James 1:11; 1 Peter 1:25), and of falling away from a straight course (Acts 27:17, 26, 29). The point is that the Word of God has not fallen off its straight course. the \u201cstraight course\u201d is the plan and the purpose of God. The Word of God has not suddenly been frustrated by Israel\u2019s rejection. In fact, the rejection by Israel of the Messiahship of Jesus was very much part of the divine program and plan. He then expounds and says, For \u2026 The little particle for is often used as an explanatory particle, as it is here, and the explanation is, \u2026 they are not all Israel, that are of Israel. It is important that this verse not be misunderstood. Paul is not distinguishing between Israel and the Church, nor between Jews and Gentiles. Rather, he is distinguishing between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe, or between the remnant and the non-remnant. The first expression, all Israel, refers to the believing Jewish remnant, the believing natural seed. The second expression, of Israel, refers to the entire nation, the whole natural seed. What Paul is saying is that there are two Israels: Israel the whole, which includes all physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, i.e., all Jews; and, within the nation of Israel, there is the Israel of God, the believing Israel, the true Israel. The contrast is between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. There is one Israel which comprises the entire nation, and within the whole of physical Israel there is a spiritual Israel. The spiritual Israel is never stated by Scripture to be the Church. Spiritual Israel is always those Jews, within the nation as a whole, who believe. In this way, Paul expounds or elaborates upon statements he made in Romans 2:28\u201329.
\nAfter stating that there are two Israels and that there is a distinction between Israel as a whole and Israel as the believing remnant, Paul then gives two illustrations out of the Old Testament. The first illustration (vv. 7\u20139) is that of Ishmael and Isaac. The purpose of this first illustration is to point out that physical descendants who believe are Abraham\u2019s real children, and behind faith is divine, sovereign calling. Salvation to those of natural descent was limited by divine grace. Both Ishmael and Isaac were physical sons of Abraham, and yet only Isaac was sustained through the Abrahamic Covenant because of divine calling (v. 7). Isaac was a Jew, but Ishmael was not. Not to all physical descendants, but only to those physical descendants that God promised are these promises given (v. 8). The promise of a son was given to Sarah, not to Hagar (v. 9). Although both Isaac and Ishmael were children of Abraham physically, Isaac was the son of promise. Isaac was the spiritual seed as well as the physical seed.
\nThe second illustration (vv. 10\u201313) is that of Esau and Jacob. While in the first illustration the two sons had the same father but different mothers, in the second illustration the two sons had the same father and mother (v. 10). In fact, they were twins. Paul again deals with the issue of divine election (vv. 11\u201312). The different destinies depended upon divine election and not descent. The whole program worked according to God\u2019s plan. Paul quotes Genesis 25:23 to show that, while two persons stood as the heads of two claims, God had already chosen who would have the Abrahamic Covenant sustained while they were still in the womb. To prove that God chose Jacob over Esau (v. 13), he quoted Malachi 1:2\u20133. This is not a question of loving more and loving less; rather, it literally means that He took Jacob to be His, but Esau He set aside. God made only one of these sons the recipient of messianic promises and not the other. It is not a question of personal animosity or personal preference. God simply rejected a rival claim.
\nThrough these two illustrations in verses 6\u201313, Paul says four things. First, God\u2019s Word has not failed, although Israel has failed; God\u2019s plan is still working its way out, and everything is going according to plan. Second, the spiritual blessings come not through one\u2019s physical descent or personal merit. Third, they come by the grace of God, due solely to the will of God. Fourth, not physical descent alone will obtain these promises, but physical descent and its spiritual appropriation. What he is not saying and will not say is that the promises were taken away from physical Israel and given to the Church. What he is saying is that these promises are still going to be given to physical Israel, but to that part of physical Israel that believes. It is not physical descent only, but physical descent and its spiritual appropriation. As in 1 Peter 2:1\u201310, it is the Remnant of Israel that is attaining the spiritual promises.<\/p>\n
(c) Israel\u2019s Rejection in Light of Biblical Principles\u20149:14\u201329<\/p>\n
In this section, Paul raises two questions and provides an answer to each.<\/p>\n
First Question: Is There Unrighteousness with God?-9:14\u201318<\/p>\n
The first question (v. 14a) is introduced as: What shall we say then? Whenever Paul introduces a question with these words, it is a question to be refuted. The question is: Is there unrighteousness with God? Is there unrighteousness with God in that He chose Jewish believers in place of the whole nation? Is God unrighteous in that He chose only the portion of Israel that believes and not Israel as a whole? Again, the question anticipates a negative answer, and it comes in three points (vv. 14b\u201318). The first answer (v. 14b) is: God forbid. The Greek word means, \u201cmay it never be\u201d; \u201cperish the thought.\u201d
\nIn the second answer (vv. 15\u201316), he quotes Exodus 33:19 (v. 15), which shows that God has absolute right to dispense His mercy as He pleases: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. If God\u2019s favor was free and unmerited to Moses, how much more so it is to others. Moses was declared to be the most meek of all the men of the earth, yet his meekness did not merit God\u2019s mercy. God\u2019s mercy was totally apart from any human merit, and if that were true with Moses, it is certainly true of all. After giving this answer, Paul draws a logical conclusion (v. 16). The words, So then, show a logical conclusion based on what has just been said: mercy does not depend on the one willing or running. In other words, mercy is not dependent upon human works. Mercy depends solely upon God\u2019s grace.
\nThe third answer (vv. 17\u201318) is a quote from Exodus 9:16 (v. 17). Here Paul introduces another Scripture to prove divine sovereignty\u2014that God is absolutely free in His dealings with men. For in Moses we see the goodness of God; in Pharaoh we see the severity of God. It shows that God raised up Pharaoh at this specific point in history. God put him on the throne to serve as an example of what divine justice is about. God had both an immediate and a distant purpose. The immediate purpose was: that I might show in thee my power. The distant purpose was: that my name might be published abroad in all the earth, and so it has been. Forty years later, when Joshua entered the land, the Canaanites were still shaking because they had heard what God had done to Egypt and to Pharaoh (Josh. 2:8\u201311).
\nPaul then draws another logical conclusion: So then \u2026 (v. 18). He will have mercy on whom he wills, and Moses is an example of election in regard to mercy. Whom he wills, he hardens, and Pharaoh is an example of hardening in reference to judgment.<\/p>\n
Second Question: Why Does God Find Fault?\u20149:19\u201329<\/p>\n
The second question is in verse 19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? This question is raised from a human viewpoint; it is from the manward side. The question is: If God hardens hearts, how can He blame them when they are doing what He willed them to do? The word will refers to God\u2019s counsel or to God\u2019s decree. Paul never answers this question directly, but deals with the attitude of the heart that produced the question. The question implies a total forgetfulness of the relationship of the created to the Creator, the relationship of man to God.
\nAs he begins to answer the question, he starts out by giving an illustration of the potter and pottery in verses 20\u201321. A potter, Paul points out, has the complete right to make of the clay, vessels of honor or vessels of dishonor, meaning vessels for simple common use. From the same clay one can make china or common dishes. The point of the illustration is to place man in a proper relationship to the Creator: if God did not elect, none would have been saved, for there is none that seek after God (3:11). Men are not lost because they are hardened; men are hardened because they are already lost. They are already filled with sin; they have fallen short of God\u2019s righteous standards, and they are lost because they are sinners and do not seek God.
\nAfter the illustration comes the application of that illustration in verses 22\u201323. Paul first describes the unbelievers as vessels of wrath (v. 22). He uses the Greek middle voice, which means that men fit themselves for destruction. The question here does not have an apothesis, so it must be supplied. It could read something like this: \u201cBut if God, notwithstanding His divine sovereignty, has in His actual dealings with mankind shown such unexpected mercy, what becomes of your complaints of any injustice? Because in reality, God has been longsuffering. He has been merciful, and there can be no real complaints against Him. God has endured with much longsuffering vessels that fitted themselves for destruction.\u201d Paul then describes the vessels of mercy (v. 23). Here he uses the passive voice, which shows that they were made fit for salvation. While men fit themselves for destruction, God makes men fit for salvation. Those whom he elects, He fits for salvation. To those whom He fits for salvation, He makes known the riches of his glory, prepared beforehand unto glory.
\nIn verse 24, he then spells out the principle: even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles. The principle is that while Paul primarily has been dealing with national election, the principle holds true regarding individual election. Until now, Paul has been concerned with two different groups of Jews: Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. Now he turns to the calling of the Gentiles to point out that among the Gentiles also, God has fitted some for salvation.
\nIn verses 25\u201329, he moves to his conclusion of this first section. As he draws his conclusion (vv. 25\u201326), Paul points out (picking up from verse 24) that vessels of mercy are also to be found among the Gentiles. At this point, he quotes from two segments of the Prophet Hosea: 2:23 and 1:10. This was not a fulfillment of Hosea, but this is an application of Hosea because of a similar situation. In his book, Hosea declared that Israel was God\u2019s people; but because of their sin, God was going to expel them from the land. For a period of time, they would become not my people. Although positionally Israel is always the people of God, experientially they only experience the benefits of being the people of God when they believe. Experientially, Israel started out as being God\u2019s people, but then God said that for a period of time, experientially, they will not be His people. They would no longer receive the benefits of being His people. However, later Israel would repent and become experientially God\u2019s people again. That is what Hosea was speaking about\u2014Israel moving from the position of not my people to becoming my people. Now a similar situation has happened with these Gentiles who believe. The Gentiles in a state of unbelief were not my people, but now that they are made vessels of mercy, and God has fit them for salvation, they have become my people. They moved from being not my people to my people. Because of this point of similarity, Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 are applied to them. This calling of the Gentiles is what Paul deals with here. Hosea had Israel (specifically the ten tribes) in mind, but Paul, because of a similar situation, applies these verses to the Gentiles. While many Gentiles became vessels of mercy, a great portion of Israel became vessels of wrath (vv. 27\u201329), for only the remnant will come to saving faith. In verses 27\u201328, Paul quotes from Isaiah 10:22\u201323. The point of verse 27 is: it is the remnant that will be saved. The point of verse 28 is: God will accomplish His purpose and the remnant will survive. Here, Paul reaffirms the point he made back in verse six: the Word of God has not failed because Israel as a nation has rejected the Messiah. It was all part of God\u2019s plan, so the Word of God is according to plan. In verse 29, he quotes from Isaiah 1:9, pointing out that if God did not intervene with grace, they would have been entirely destroyed. If a remnant had not been preserved by God through His election, none would be left or saved. It is the remnant through whom God will fulfill His program, not the entire nation. God keeps the nation alive because of the believing remnant; so the believing remnant is responsible for keeping the entire nation alive. The reason all attempts to annihilate the Jews have consistently failed is because there was always a believing remnant among the Jews.
\nTo summarize this first division, Paul shows that Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus did not mean that God\u2019s plan and program have come to naught, that it has fallen short, or that it has fallen aside; rather, this was all according to divine plan. God planned it this way. It was in the program of God that Israel would reject the Messiahship of Jesus, and it is because of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus that mercy was extended to the Gentiles. The mercy shown to the Gentiles was not to the total exclusion of the Jews, however, because even among the Jews there is a remnant coming to saving faith. There are vessels of mercy both among Jews and Gentiles, and there are vessels of wrath among Jews and Gentiles. The reason the gospel went out freely among the Gentiles is because Israel as a nation had rejected it; and that was very much part of the divine plan. It is something God had already planned back in the Old Testament, because what Paul teaches here is what Isaiah predicted in Isaiah 49:1\u201313.<\/p>\n
(3) The Explanation of Israel\u2019s Rejection\u20149:30\u201310:21<\/p>\n
In the previous section, Paul dealt with Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus from the standpoint of divine sovereignty. In this section, he deals with the same subject, but from the standpoint of human responsibility. He explains just why Israel did fail.<\/p>\n
(a) The Stumbling of the People\u20149:30\u201333<\/p>\n
Paul begins by describing a paradox (vv. 30\u201331). The Gentiles, who did not have a law to quicken their moral sensibilities like the Jews did, were not, like the Jews, seeking to attain righteousness (v. 30). Yet these Gentiles did attain righteousness by faith and not by works. But Israel, who did pursue after righteousness, did not obtain it (v. 31).
\nThat is the paradox, which is then explained (v. 32a). The reason Israel, who did pursue after righteousness, did not obtain it was because they did not come to it on the basis of faith. Israel did not arrive because they did not trust God, they trusted their own works. Their own works, in the end, failed to bring them to righteousness. So Israel, who sought it, failed to attain it because she was trying to attain it by works. The Gentiles, who did not seek it, did attain it in the end because they found it by faith.
\nPaul then deals with the cause (vv. 32b\u201333): they did not seek it by faith, but by works. Seeking it by works and not by faith, they stumbled. It was Israel\u2019s avoidance of faith and insistence upon works that caused the problem. Their avoidance of faith and insistence upon works is due to the guilt of Israel in stumbling at the doctrine of righteousness by faith in the Messiah. Their attitude of trying to attain righteousness by works carried with it the attitude of rejection of the Messiah Himself. Salvation is by grace through faith in the Messiah alone, plus nothing. In that way, Christ became the stone of stumbling, because they must trust Him for salvation. When they failed to trust Him, they stumbled over Him, and as a result they failed to attain righteousness. They sought righteousness by law and they stumbled. Paul then quotes Isaiah 8:14, which confirms the twofold attitude of both stumbling and rejection. Jesus\u2019 offer of salvation by pure faith in Him, apart from works, proved to be two things: a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. They stumbled over that doctrine of salvation by grace through faith plus nothing, and then they were offended by it. Paul then quotes Isaiah 28:16, which concerns those who believe. Regarding those who believe, they are not ashamed of this doctrine of salvation by grace through faith plus nothing. The Jewish remnant did not stumble over Jesus. For the Jewish believer, Jesus is not the stone of stumbling nor the rock of offence (1 Peter 2:1\u201310).
\nThe picture of the Messiah as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence was first taught by Isaiah and developed by Paul and Peter. All three point out the distinction between the remnant and the non-remnant in relationship to this stone.<\/p>\n
(b) Israel\u2019s Ignorance of the Channel of Salvation\u201410:1\u201311<\/p>\n
After dealing with the stumbling of the people, Paul then spells out the background behind it, which was their ignorance of the channel of salvation. The facts that Paul stated in 9:30\u201333 are now explained. Israel failed to attain righteousness because they sought a righteousness that was dependent upon their own works.
\nAs he begins to explain their ignorance of the channel of salvation, in verses 1\u20132 he again expresses a desire as he did in the beginning of chapter nine. Paul first expresses his own personal desire (v. 1). He addresses his readers as brethren, thereby uniting all believers with himself. All believers, then, should share this same desire. The Greek term that is translated heart\u2019s desire means \u201cthat in which the heart would find full satisfaction.\u201d The desire Paul expresses here, if it is fulfilled, will find full satisfaction in Paul\u2019s heart. He wants every other believer to share this same burden that he has on his heart, a burden that, once it is fulfilled and removed, allows the heart to find full satisfaction. Regarding that burden and desire, Paul said, My supplication to God is for them, that they might be saved. The thing for which Paul kept praying is that the Jewish people might be saved. That was Paul\u2019s desire: to be able to see the salvation of the Jewish people, not only on a national level, but also on an individual level. Paul then bears a witness for the Jewish people (v. 2). He testifies that the Jewish people do have a zeal for God, and this zeal is the cause of Paul\u2019s pain. Whereas in chapter nine Jewish zealousness was to their advantage, in chapter ten it is also a cause of pain. The problem was that their zeal is not according to knowledge, because sincerity is not enough. It is this verse that becomes the key to this division, as 9:6 was the key to the first main division. While the Jewish people had a knowledge of God, they did not know God in Christ, and that is crucial for salvation. In the Greek text, Paul wrote that they had gnosis\u2014they had knowledge; but they did not have epignosis\u2014they did not have full knowledge. This is the same point that Hosea made: the reason Israel is lost is because of a lack of knowledge of spiritual truth (Hosea 4:6).
\nPaul then distinguishes between legal righteousness and faith righteousness. Legal righteousness is described in verses 3\u20135. Paul once again emphasizes the failure\u2014they failed to attain the righteousness which is of the law (v. 3). The failure lies in the fact that they were ignorant of God\u2019s righteousness. The righteousness of God is the sentence of justification which is conferred upon those who believe. But they did not seek God\u2019s righteousness, they did not seek to be declared righteous by faith. Rather, they sought their own righteousness. Their own righteousness is the sentence of justification sought by the way the individual kept the law. They sought to establish their own righteousness. They sought to establish their righteousness to their own glory by works. As soon as they tried to establish righteousness by their own works, it meant that they refused to subject themselves to the righteousness of God, because the righteousness of God is attained by grace through faith plus nothing. This turned out to be an act of disobedience. Paul explains the reason for it: that Christ is the end of the law (v. 4). The Greek word translated end is telos. It is a Greek word that can mean two things. First, it could mean \u201ctermination,\u201d that Christ is the termination of the law; He brought the end of the law. Second, the word telos can also mean \u201cgoal,\u201d that the goal of the law was the Messiah. The law was not an end in itself, but it was intended to bring one to faith in the Messiah. From other passages, it is clear that both are true. The Messiah was the goal of the law to bring one to faith (Gal. 3:10\u20134:7). The death of Jesus also brought the law to an end (Heb. 7:11\u201318; 2 Cor. 3:1\u201318). But the primary meaning of the word is \u201ctermination.\u201d In either case, Israel the whole failed on both counts. Israel failed to realize that the goal of the law was faith in the Messiah and that the law had ended as a rule of life. It was never a means of salvation. The law was rendered inoperative for the reason that Christ was to be seen as the One through Whom man attains righteousness, and not by the works of the law. To prove his point, Paul quotes Leviticus 18:5 to show that Moses himself saw the impossibility of keeping the law (v. 5). In this particular passage the contrast is not between law and faith; the contrast is between righteousness proceeding from the law and righteousness proceeding from faith. No man attains any righteousness that proceeds through the law because he fails to keep the law perfectly. Therefore, the only way man is justified and declared righteous is if he proceeds on the basis of faith. Legal righteousness is trying to attain righteousness by the works of the law, failing to see that salvation can only be granted by grace through faith in the Messiah.
\nIn verses 6\u201311 Paul deals with the issue of faith righteousness. He starts with a description of faith righteousness in verses 6\u20137. In these verses Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 30:12\u201313 where Moses explained the nearness of (God\u2019s righteousness. He said that one does not need to go up into heaven to bring it down, or to go down into the abyss in order to bring it up. Faith righteousness is near and it is accessible. What Moses said to Israel is here applied to Christ. To obtain this righteousness, one does not need to go either into heaven or to hell, because it is apart from human merit. Man does not need to initiate the incarnation (to bring Christ down), for this has already been done and Christ has come down. Nor does man need to initiate the resurrection (to bring Christ up), for this has already been done and Christ has been resurrected. Faith righteousness is not initiated by human merit. Then, in verse eight, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 30:14, which spells out the means: it is in the heart and in the mouth, showing its nearness and accessibility. The word of faith is the message, the subject of which is faith; the message or gospel which Paul has been preaching is faith. In verses 9\u201311, Paul explains: there is one essential to salvation, and that is belief. Belief will naturally flow out in confession (vv. 9\u201310). With the mouth, one confesses Jesus is Lord. With the heart, he believes that God raised Him from the dead. With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. This chiastic construction (mouth-heart; heart-mouth) means that believing and confessing occur at the same time. Confession is not some later thing one does as part of gaining salvation. Belief in the heart brings righteousness and justification. The confession is made to God and the content of this confession is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. Faith has content, and the content is that Jesus is Savior; that is what one confesses the moment he believes. Paul then quotes from Isaiah 28:16 to prove that faith is the only condition for salvation (v. 11). That is the point of his argument, that the universal way of attaining salvation is through faith.<\/p>\n
(c) Israel\u2019s Ignorance of the Universal Character of Salvation\u201410:12\u201313<\/p>\n
Earlier Paul proved that salvation in the Old Testament was to those who believed and not on the basis of human works. Here Paul proves that salvation is universal to all who believe. Because salvation is free, it is necessarily universal. It is free to both Jews and Gentiles alike. Insofar as the way a man is saved, there is no distinction. In 3:22\u201323 he pointed out that all are sinners, both Jews and Gentiles. Now he points out that all may be saved, both Jews and Gentiles. The Lord of the Jews is the Lord of the Gentiles; He is the same Lord. This Lord is rich in His gracious dealings and graciously responds to all who call upon Him. To prove it, Paul quotes from Joel 2:32 which is the evidence of universality, in that anyone who will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. In verse 12, the emphasis is upon the character of God: He is the Lord of all. In verse 13, the emphasis is on the promise of God: whosoever shall call upon Him shall be saved. That includes both Jews and Gentiles. Paul is not saying that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been erased. The point here is that as far as the way one is saved, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles since all are saved the same way: by grace through faith. But Israel\u2019s ignorance of the universal character of salvation caused them to stumble over the belief in the Messiahship of Jesus. Since the law was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles, the Jewish people wrongly concluded that God intended to save Jews but not the Gentles. They wrongly concluded that salvation was not available to Gentiles unless they fully took upon themselves the works of the law, assuming that if they kept the law, they would be saved. However, salvation was never on the basis of the law, but on the basis of grace through faith. This is true for both Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n
(d) Israel\u2019s Ignorance of the Universal Preaching of the Gospel\u201410:14\u201321<\/p>\n
In this section there is another proof that the stumbling of Israel was the fault of Israel and not God\u2019s fault. The nature of salvation, which he just explained, necessitated that it be preached without distinction. This very freedom of the offer of salvation to all proved to be a stumbling block to unbelieving Jewish people, but they did not have the excuse of not having heard.
\nIn verses 14\u201315, he presents the chain of the preaching. Each question is a chain in the argument, and each conclusion is tacitly assumed and forms the ground or basis for the next question. In these questions he points out four things: first, there is no calling upon the name of the Lord without faith; second, there can be no faith without hearing, because faith must have content, and someone must hear the content of faith before he can believe it; third, there is no hearing without preaching; and, fourth, there is no preaching without sending. A universal gospel is a necessary corollary to a universal salvation, and that requires a universal proclamation of the gospel. Israel rejected the preaching, and their ignorance was the cause of rejection. Here Paul quotes Isaiah 52:7 to show that the message had been preached, but it was simply not believed. Because of the previous problem, their ignorance of the universal character of salvation, they failed to preach salvation through faith to the Gentiles. Yet there can be no calling without faith, no faith without hearing, no hearing without preaching, and no preaching without sending.
\nThen, in verses 16\u201318, Paul shows that the message was heard. Paul points out Israel\u2019s failure to obey the gospel (v. 16). The word obey means \u201ca voluntary submission.\u201d They failed to voluntarily submit to the demands of the gospel. He then quotes Isaiah 53:1 to prove that there was a failure to obey, and this chapter of Isaiah deals with Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus. In verse 17, he speaks of the relationship between faith and hearing. The relationship is that one must have a message to believe. But how is he going to believe a message unless he hears it? Belief of a message comes by hearing, and hearing is by the Word of God. In verse 18, he shows that the Jews had the message. The problem was not a lack of hearing, but a lack of obedience. Here he quotes Psalm 19:4 to show that the Jewish people are inexcusable, for the message that came only through nature (or general revelation) should have brought them to faith. But they had more than just the message of nature, they had the gospel preached to them (special revelation). By this time, the gospel had been preached in every Jewish community. This shows that Israel had heard.
\nIn verses 19\u201320, Paul quotes Old Testament prophecy, Deuteronomy 32:21 and Isaiah 65:1, which anticipated a salvation that would be sent out to every nation, and that Gentiles among these nations would receive it. The message that the Jewish people were rejecting, Gentiles were accepting. Those who believe will constitute a new entity that will provoke Jews to jealousy, a point Paul will detail in 11:11\u201314. This new group, however, is not a nation, but it is a \u201cno-nation,\u201d for it is composed of believers from all nations.
\nHe then concludes (v. 21) by quoting Isaiah 65:2 to show that, even though Israel rejected Him, God\u2019s attitude toward Israel was still one of love. God continuously keeps His hands open, and anytime Israel wants to respond, He will accept them. Israel has rejected the Lord, but the Lord is still waiting to receive Israel.<\/p>\n
(4) The Consolation of Israel\u2019s Rejection\u201411:1\u201324<\/p>\n
(a) The Rejection by Israel is Not Total\u201411:1\u201310<\/p>\n
The word then connects 11:1 with 10:21, showing that the question raised in 11:1 is based on the statement in 10:21, which portrays Israel in unbelief. It also shows that the people of 10:21 and 11:1 must be the same: national Israel. In these verses Paul taught that Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus is not complete or total, because even today there are Jewish people coming to a saving knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus. He begins with a question: Did God cast off his people? The answer comes quickly: God forbid! or more strongly in the Greek, \u201cmay it never be,\u201d \u201cperish the thought.\u201d The problem was not that God had cast off His people. The fact that Israel has rejected the Messiahship of Jesus does not mean that God has rejected Israel. Israel is still the chosen people of God. As Paul states, God did not cast off His people. If He had, it would mean that no single Jew could ever be saved. To prove it, Paul first cites himself as an example. The fact that Paul himself was a Jewish believer shows two things: first, that Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiah was not total, because Paul was a Jewish person and he believed; and, second, it showed that God has not rejected or cast off His people. Otherwise, Paul would not have been saved. Although the majority do not believe, still God has not cast off His people, rejected his elect nation. The fact that Paul refers to Israel as his people in the present age shows that they are still the chosen people.
\nPaul then brings out the choice of God (v. 2a). The relationship between God and His people is that of foreknowledge. God had, in His foreknowledge, chosen Israel in spite of His knowledge that Israel would reject the Messiahship of Jesus. The reason God knew this was because of His foreknowledge, and His foreknowledge was based upon His foreordination. The fact that God foreknew His people, then chose His people, shows that God has not cast off his people. The very concept of the foreknowledge of God forbids the concept of the casting off of Israel. Foreknowledge is not merely \u201cto know beforehand.\u201d The verb \u201cto foreknow\u201d should be understood in its Old Testament Hebrew sense, \u201cto choose in advance.\u201d Since Israel was chosen, God could not cast off Israel.
\nThen to show that Paul was not alone in his Jewish faith of the Messiahship of Jesus, he next deals with the calling of the remnant (vv. 2b\u201310). There are many other Jews who have come to saving faith, both in the past and at the present time. Paul gives the historical example of Elijah (vv. 2b\u20134). The point is to show that God has always had a remnant. Although the remnant may have been quite small at times, God has always had a remnant. While apostasy was general, it was not universal among Jews. The point Paul is making with the example of Elijah is that what is true today has always been true: it is the remnant that comes to saving faith. The remnant in Elijah\u2019s day was only seven thousand strong. What has happened since Christ is nothing new, because throughout Jewish history the majority have always been in the state of unbelief and the remnant are the ones that have come to saving faith. After giving the illustration of Elijah, Paul gave the application of the illustration (v. 5). Even so (the comparison), then (the inference); what was true then is true now: there is a remnant according to the election of grace. By declaring that it is the election of grace, Paul gave the standard according to which the remnant comes into existence. It is not on the basis of the Law of Moses (10:4), but on the basis of grace. Paul uses the Greek perfect tense, which shows the remnant has existed in the past and still does exist in the present. The present remnant of verse five corresponds to the seven thousand of Elijah\u2019s day. This remnant is the Israel of God of Galatians 6:16. He then gives the explanation (v. 6). He drives the point home that works and grace are mutually exclusive (the same point he made in chapter ten). If it is by grace, it cannot be of works, the reason being that it would make grace no longer grace. No one, not even the Jew, can make any claim on God, but God will save men only by grace though faith, both among the Jews and among the Gentiles. Insofar as the basis of salvation is concerned, law and grace, works and faith are mutually exclusive. Paul next draws a logical conclusion (v. 7). What then? The inference is: that which Israel the whole sought, that he obtained not. Israel the whole sought righteousness, but as 9:31\u201333 pointed out, they sought this righteousness on the basis of their own works and the works of the law and did not obtain it. The elect obtained righteousness, while the rest were hardened. Again, the distinction here is not between the Church and Israel, or between Jews and Gentiles, but between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. That which Israel the whole failed to obtain, Israel the remnant did obtain. The Jewish believers have obtained this righteousness of God. This same point was made in 1 Peter 2:1\u201310. While Israel the whole has failed to obtain the righteousness of God, there is a remnant within Israel that has not failed. It is this remnant, the Jewish believers, that is the Israel of God. Again, the distinction is between the remnant (the election obtained it) and the non-remnant (the rest were hardened). Paul then quotes from the Old Testament to show the present hardening of Israel (vv. 8\u201310). He quotes Deuteronomy 29:4 (the law), Isaiah 29:10 (the prophets) and Psalm 69:22\u201323 (the writings) to show that Israel as a whole has been hardened.
\nThe point of verses 1\u201310, then, is that while Israel as a nation has failed to attain righteousness, this rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus is not a total rejection, because there are Jewish people who do believe. These Jewish believers have attained the righteousness of God. At the present time, there are Jewish believers and there is a remnant according to the election of grace.<\/p>\n
(b) The Purpose of Israel\u2019s Stumbling\u201411:11\u201315<\/p>\n
Here again Paul raises a question to be refuted: I say then. The question is: Did they stumble that they might fall? (v. 11a). Was Israel\u2019s stumbling which he spoke of back in 9:30\u201333 for the purpose of Israel\u2019s falling? Was the purpose so that God could reject and cast off His people? (Paul is looking at the majority that did stumble.) The Greek word that Paul used for fall refers to \u201ca complete and irrevocable fall.\u201d So was the stumbling of Israel for the purpose that Israel would irrevocably fall and never rise again? Paul then gave the answer: God forbid! May it never be! In the light of God\u2019s faithfulness, this is unthinkable. They have stumbled, but it was not for the purpose of falling irrevocably. God planned for Israel to stumble for the purpose of Gentile salvation; for the purpose of Gentile salvation, Israel stumbled. But Gentile salvation is subservient to Jewish salvation.
\nHaving said this, in verses 11b\u201315 Paul points out that since Israel\u2019s stumbling was for the purpose of Gentile salvation, which is the riches of the world or the riches of the Gentiles, this fact should lead to some key lessons. Paul then spelled out the purpose of Gentile salvation (vv. 11b\u201314): to provoke Jews to jealousy (v. 11b). This is a reference to Deuteronomy 32:21, already cited back in 10:19, Gentile salvation is, therefore, for the purpose of provoking the Jews to jealousy. Why is God saving Gentiles today? To provoke the Jews to jealousy. The Greek word Paul used means \u201cto come alongside someone and to cause him to boil or seeth with jealousy.\u201d The reason God saved the Gentiles was so that a believing Gentile would come alongside an unbelieving Jewish person and cause the Jewish person to become jealous because of what that Gentile believer had and become a believer in the Messiah also. Verse 12 presents a contrast between partial and fullness. Concerning the partial, there is now a reduction of the nation to a remnant of believers today, but in the future, there will be a national salvation of the nation as a whole and this will be their \u201cfullness.\u201d The first lesson to learn about Israel\u2019s stumbling is that Israel did not stumble for an irrevocable fall. The reason for Israel\u2019s stumbling was that salvation could now go out to the Gentiles. Now that salvation has gone out to the Gentiles, the purpose of Gentile salvation is to provoke the Jews to jealousy to bring them to salvation (vv. 13\u201314). The purpose of Israel\u2019s stumbling was Gentile salvation, and the purpose for Gentile salvation is Jewish salvation. That is the methodology by which God has chosen to work. There is a second lesson to be learned (v. 15): all of this will result in blessings for Israel. Paul states that if the stumbling and casting away of Israel meant the reconciliation of the Gentile world, then the receiving of Israel would mean life from the dead. This is the statement of Israel\u2019s place in God\u2019s blessing. The unbelief of Israel was directed toward the restoration of faith; the fall of Israel was directed toward their reclamation. The fulness here refers to Israel\u2019s complete restoration. If by the fall of Israel the Gentiles received the gospel, how much more will the Gentiles be blessed by Israel\u2019s return. It is an argument from the lesser to the greater. If the Gentiles have received this much blessing by virtue of Israel\u2019s stumbling, just think how much more blessing the Gentiles will have when Israel is saved. This will lead to the second coming and the establishment of the kingdom. This is why Paul labored so hard among the Gentiles (vv. 13\u201314). In this way, even more Jews will be provoked to jealousy and believe, and this, in turn, will mean even more blessings for the Gentiles (v. 15).
\nThe point Paul makes is that it was God\u2019s plan for Israel to reject the Messiahship of Jesus so that for awhile the gospel would go out to the Gentiles, during which time they were to provoke Jews to jealousy until eventually all Israel is saved. Paul builds upon Isaiah 49:1\u201313 where Isaiah taught the same thing: that the Messiah would come to Israel, Israel would reject Him, and the Messiah would then, for awhile, become the light to the Gentiles; but eventually Israel will return to Him and be restored. Paul does not say anything new here; he just points out the way Isaiah 49 is being fulfilled in this day.<\/p>\n
(c) The Olive Tree\u201411:16\u201324<\/p>\n
Paul begins by giving the illustration and the principle (v. 16). The connecting for or if or now provides the reason for believing in a future national restoration. The illustration is that of the firstfruit and the root which refer to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Abrahamic Covenant. They are holy because they were separated and consecrated by God for a divine purpose. Israel as a nation is the lump and the branches. The principle, based on Numbers 15:17\u201321, is that the holiness or consecration of the firstfruits and the root is passed on to the lump and the branches. Just as the firstfruits sanctifies the whole harvest (lump), even some day all Israel will also be sanctified. The Abrahamic Covenant made with the patriarchs is the basis for the expectation of Israel\u2019s future national salvation.
\nThe natural branches are the Jews (Israel) and the wild olive branches are the Gentiles (v. 17). The Olive Tree in this passage does not represent Israel or the Church, but it represents the place of spiritual blessing. The root of this place of blessing is the Abrahamic Covenant. The point that Paul makes here is the same point that he made in Ephesians 2:11\u201316 and 3:5\u20136. The Gentiles, by their faith, have now become partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings. This Olive Tree represents the place of blessing, and now Gentiles have been grafted into this place of blessing and partaking of its sap. Gentiles have been made partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings as contained in the Abrahamic Covenant. The Gentiles are not taker-overs, but partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings. Paul spoke of the grafting of wild olive branches into a good olive tree. Critics of Paul have said that it is obvious that Paul did not understand horticulture, because you never graft a wild olive branch into a good olive tree, for this is unnatural. That is exactly the point Paul was making. It is unnatural for wild olive branches to be grafted into a good olive tree. It is unnatural for Gentiles to be grafted into this place of blessing that comes out of the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul does not say that this is normal, he says that this is abnormal. In verse 24, Paul states that this is contrary to nature. Normally, such a graft would be unfruitful. The point he is making is that God is doing something that is unnatural: He is bringing Gentiles into the place of blessing based on the Jewish covenants.
\nThen Paul gives a warning (vv. 18\u201322). The basis of Gentile blessing is faith and not merit. If the Gentiles are to remain in the place of blessing, they must continue in faith. Israel\u2019s failure should be a lesson to them. He is not dealing with individuals as such; he is not dealing with individual believers and unbelievers, but with nationalities of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were in the place of blessing as a nationality, but because of their unbelief they were broken off. Now Gentiles are to be found in the place of blessing; but if they fail in faith, they will also be broken off from the place of blessing. This is not a loss of salvation, but a removal from the place of blessing. The warning is that the basis of Gentile blessing is faith and not merit. Gentiles are warned against boasting over the natural branches, for they are not self-sustained, but are sustained by the root: the Abrahamic Covenant, which is a Jewish covenant.
\nPaul then presents the argument for Israel\u2019s eventual restoration (vv. 23\u201324). Paul points out that the only thing preventing Israel\u2019s restoration is their unbelief, for God has full ability to graft them in again (v. 23). He then gives the reason why all should expect Israel to be restored (v. 24). Paul stated that it is their own olive tree. This Olive Tree, this place of blessing, belongs to Israel. How so? The place of blessing is based upon the four unconditional covenants God made with Israel. These are the Jewish covenants. Rightfully, the place of blessing belongs to the Jews. It is their place of blessing. This is part of Israel\u2019s advantage of 3:1\u20132. Gentiles are merely partakers and are sharing in their covenant blessings. Because of this, one ought to expect Israel to be restored into it. For if God would graft wild olive branches contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will God graft back in the natural branches into their own olive tree. Having spelled out the expectation, Paul, in the next segment, declared that this is exactly what is going to happen someday. This will be discussed under Israel Future.<\/p>\n
8. Hebrew Christianity\/Messianic Jews<\/p>\n
As the doctrine of the Remnant of Israel teaches, there always were, are, and will be Jews who will believe and these make up the Israel of God. The previous section showed that according to the New Testament, the Remnant of Israel today is the Jewish believers in the Messiahship of Jesus. Throughout history since Jesus, there always were Jewish believers in Jesus and periodically in certain parts of the world there were sudden increases in the number of Jewish believers. One such revival took place in the United States following the Six Day War in 1967. By the mid-1970\u2019s the movement somewhat solidified in its Jewish consciousness and began to express itself along more Jewish lines with traditional practices, both biblical and rabbinic. The movement was to move away from assimilation to a distinct Jewish expression. The movement is far from monolithic and various segments of the movement have chosen to express their Jewishness and their Christianity in a variety of ways, including the establishment of congregations of Jewish believers. It is not the purpose of this section to discuss the various segments of the movement, but to defend biblically its right to its Jewish identity and its right to express its Jewishness as a distinct entity within the Body of the Messiah, the Church. This is important for Dispensational Israelology since, theologically speaking, only Dispensationalism can allow for a Hebrew Christian\/Messianic Jewish distinctives within the Body of the Messiah and still be consistent with its theological system. It will also be the purpose of this section to deal with theological misconceptions and fallacies concerning this issue, both among Gentile believers and Jewish believers.
\nOne such misconception which must be cleared up by way of introduction is the issue of terminology. Some have tried to make a distinction between those who are called Hebrew Christians or Jewish Christians and those called Messianic Jews. This is a fallacy. Any definition of \u201cHebrew Christian\u201d or \u201cJewish Christian\u201d would be true of many who prefer to call themselves \u201cMessianic Jews\u201d and any definition of the latter will be true of many of those who use the former designation. The following is an example of this misconception:<\/p>\n
The Hebrew Christian would be a person who sees himself coming from Jewish ethnic origin and may desire to maintain the identity of himself that he has a Hebrew origin. But at the same time, the Hebrew Christian sees himself having come into the New Covenant. The Old Covenant has passed away. So the direct practice of anything Jewish is contrary to his being part of the new people of God and the body of Christ. The Messianic Jew on the other hand, holds that the Jew is still called by God. It\u2019s not a legalistic thing but it\u2019s a Biblical calling to maintain his heritage and practice consistent with extolling fulfillment in Yeshua.<\/p>\n
This is a totally false distinction. All Jewish believers, regardless of what they call themselves \u201chave come into the New Covenant\u201d and all believe that the \u201cOld Covenant has passed away\u201d to some degree for they all believe Hebrews 8:13. To claim that Hebrew Christians believe \u201cthe direct practice of anything Jewish is contrary to his being part of the new people of God and the body of Christ\u201d is a distortion and a deliberate ignoring of what those who call themselves Hebrew Christians believe, practice, and have written. Hebrew Christians have maintained and defended the right of the Jewish believer \u201cto maintain his heritage and practice.\u201d The distinction made in the above quote is not true to fact and is inexcusable.
\nSo is the following statement:<\/p>\n
Thus, the Hebrew Christian \u2018does not have a Passover Seder. He has a Passover demonstration, because to have a Passover Seder is to act as though the fulfillment has not come.\u2019 To Juster, the first distinction is maintenance of heritage and practice.<\/p>\n
This is a contrary-to-fact condition. Hebrew Christians do have a full Passover Seder and not merely a demonstration and often those who call themselves Hebrew Christians have a far more traditional seder than those who prefer the term Messianic Jew. One proof of this is a comparison of the Passover Haggadah produced by Daniel Juster, who prefers the term Messianic Jew, and the Haggadah compiled by the author, who is known as a Hebrew Christian but has no problem using Messianic Jew either.
\nRausch then adds:<\/p>\n
The second distinction between Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians would be the \u2018call to Torah and community.\u2019 \u2018There is no mandate in Scripture for Messianic Jewish congregations, but there is a mandate to be a part of a community,\u2019 Dan Juster explained and then noted that such a distinctive naturally led to congregations.<\/p>\n
This too is a fallacy. All Jewish believers struggle in some degree with the Law of Moses and those Jewish believers who still believe that they are under the Law of Moses, like Covenant Theologians, all have to make major adjustments with the law; Juster is no exception. As for congregations, there are Jewish congregations under both terms and there is little marked difference in the style of worship between them.
\nSurveying the movement of believing Jews today, there are differences among them, but these differences do not lie in terminology. There is no difference between the terms Hebrew or Jewish Christian and Messianic Jew and, for the purpose of this work, they will be taken to mean the same thing and will be used interchangeably.
\nThere is a problem with the term Messianic Judaism since the latter term usually refers to a religion and a religious system which rejects the belief of Jesus being the Messiah. Though popular among many Jewish believers, it is an unwise designation for it leads to unnecessary confusion. It fails to distinguish between Jewishness and Judaism which is crucial for Jewish believers to establish their own identity. Furthermore, it is often used to stress the belief of some Jewish believers that they are under the umbrella of Judaism or \u201ca fourth branch of Judaism.\u201d Biblically, however, regardless of preferred terminology, they are part of the Church and need to see themselves as such. The Remnant of Israel today is the Jewish wing of the Church and not a branch of Judaism. The expression \u201cMessianic Judaism\u201d will not be used in this work as interchangeable with the previous terms described earlier.<\/p>\n
a. Definitions<\/p>\n
Some specific terms now need to be defined: Jew, Gentile, Christian, and Hebrew Christian\/Messianic Jew. These will be defined individually on the basis of Scripture.<\/p>\n
(1) Jewishness: Who is a Jew?<\/p>\n
There are few topics in the Jewish world today which have been more debated than this one. To this day there is no consistent definition. The Hebrew Christian\/Messianic Jewish definition has an objective standard; it goes back to the very source of Jewishness, the Scriptures. The further any definition departs from the Scriptures, the foggier it gets. The Jewish believer is forced to define Jewishness in the biblical sense of the term, for to him the Scriptures are the source of authority. Hence, the Hebrew Christian definition can also be called the biblical definition. The biblical basis for defining Jewishness lies in the Abrahamic Covenant which promised that a nation would descend from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Genesis 12:2a; 13:16; 15:5; 17:1\u20132, 7; 22:17; 26:4, 24; and 28:14; from which a simple definition of Jewishness can be deduced. It lies in the repeated statement that a nation or a people will come through the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and thus defines Jewishness in terms of nationality. This nationality is not confined to the State of Israel alone, but it includes all the Jewish people no matter where they are. Biblically speaking, the Jewish people are a nation; a scattered nation but, nevertheless, a nation. They are a nation because they are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. A simple definition then is: a Jew is any descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The implication of this definition is that no matter what a Jew does he can never become a non-Jew; no matter what the individual Jew may believe or disbelieve, he remains a Jew. A black person who is a Christian, Moslem, or Buddhist remains black. A Chinese person who becomes a Christian remains Chinese; if he remains a Buddhist, he still remains Chinese. The same is true of the Jew, whether Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, atheist, agnostic, or communist. If a Jew chooses to believe that Jesus is his Messiah, he too remains a Jew. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can change the fact that he is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
\nAt this point the problem of children of mixed marriages comes up. These children are usually designated half-Jewish and half-Gentile. The theology of Judaism teaches that Jewishness is determined by the mother; if the mother is Jewish, then the children are Jewish. However, this is a departure from the biblical norm. In the Scriptures it is not the mother who determines Jewishness, but the father; consequently the genealogies of both the Old and New Testaments list the names of the men and not of the women, except in cases where a mother was notable in Jewish history. Thus, if the father is Jewish, the children are Jewish. King David was definitely Jewish, although his great-grandmother Ruth and his great-great-grandmother Rahab were both Gentiles.
\nA clear example of this is found in Leviticus 24:10\u201312:<\/p>\n
And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp: and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother\u2019s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of Jehovah.<\/p>\n
The passage speaks of one who had a Jewish mother and a Gentile father. Consistently he is merely identified as the son of an Israelitish woman and never classed as an Israelite himself, but distinguished from Israelites more than once. This happens twice in verse ten. First, he is one who went out among the children of Israel, and the phrase distinguishes him from them. Second, he got into a fight with a man of Israel, and this is in contrast with the individual himself who obviously was not considered a man of Israel.
\nBiblically speaking, Jewishness is traced through the father and not the mother and so the child of a Jewish father is Jewish; the Scriptures leave him no choice in the matter. However, the same is not equally true with the child of a Jewish mother and a Gentle father. Technically, he would be classed as a Gentile, but he had the freedom to identify himself with the Jews. This comes out clearly in the case of Timothy in Acts 16:1\u20133:<\/p>\n
And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek. The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.<\/p>\n
Since Timothy had a Gentile father, he is never actually classed as a Jew in the New Testament where he is mentioned. Since all knew that his father was a Greek, this obviously cast doubts on his Jewishness. However, because of his Jewish roots through his mother, he had the option to identify himself with the Jews and so was circumcised to make that identification complete. Titus, on the other hand, was forbidden to be circumcised because he was purely Gentile (Gal. 2:1\u201310). Timothy had Jewish roots and so, for him, circumcision was a valid option.<\/p>\n
(2) Gentile: Who is a Gentile?<\/p>\n
If the Scriptures are used as the objective standard, then the definition of a Gentile is equally simple. A Gentile is simply anyone who is not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In short, a Gentile is anyone who is not a Jew. The implication again is that no matter what a Gentile does he can never become a non-Gentile.
\nThis raises the question of Gentiles who have converted to Judaism. Can they properly be called Jews? On the basis of Scripture, the answer is no. The Jew is the nationality; Judaism is the religion. Acceptance of Judaism by a Gentile does not make him a Jew, but a proselyte. For that reason, the New Testament makes a distinction between Jews and proselytes in four passages. The first is found in Matthew 23:15:<\/p>\n
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that these evangelists for Judaism are not said to seek to make one a Jew, but to make one a proselyte.
\nA second passage is Acts 2:10, which is at the end of a list of place names showing the origins of the multitude who had come to Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost. The list ends with the phrase, both Jews and proselytes. Again, there is that same distinction.
\nActs 6:5 provides a third example:<\/p>\n
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parrnenas, and Nicolaus a Proselyte of Antioch.<\/p>\n
In this passage a distinction is made between Nicolaus and the rest. The others were all Jews who had accepted Christ, but Nicolaus was a proselyte, a Gentile convert to Judaism who had accepted Christ.
\nThe final example is found in Acts 13:43:<\/p>\n
Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas; who, speaking to them, urged them to continue in the grace of God.<\/p>\n
Again the same distinction is clearly made. Gentile converts to Judaism are never given the title of Jew. The Jews are those born that way. The proselytes are Gentile converts to Judaism.
\nThe chief Old Testament example of a Gentile convert to Judaism is Ruth. Many Gentiles have tried to claim Jewishness on the principle of conversion based on Ruth\u2019s story. However, Ruth is consistently called a Moabitess both before and after her acceptance of the God of Israel. This can be seen in Ruth 1:22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10.
\nThe implication is that a Gentile cannot do anything to become a non-Gentile.<\/p>\n
(3) Christianity: Who is a Christian?<\/p>\n
Again, one must go to the Scriptures to determine the true definition. The New Testament divides the world into three groups of people: Jews, Gentiles, and Christians (1 Cor. 10:32). It plainly teaches that no one can ever be born a Christian; everyone is either born a Jew or a Gentile. A Christian, however, is either a Jew or a Gentile who has made a personal decision to become a Christian. He is not one who merely holds church membership or is baptized. These may follow the personal decision, but they cannot be the cause of one\u2019s becoming a Christian.
\nA Christian is a Jew or a Gentile who has come to realize that man is born in a state of sin and for this reason is separated from God. Thus, the penalty for sin must first be paid if he is to come to know God in a personal way. However, being a sinner, an individual Jew or an individual Gentile cannot by himself pay the price or penalty for sin. This was the purpose of the coming of the Messiah. At His death, Messiah became the substitute for sin and so paid the penalty for it. Both the Old and New Testaments teach that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin:<\/p>\n
For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. (Lev. 17:11)<\/p>\n
And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission. (Heb. 9:22)<\/p>\n
The basic content of faith today (that is, what one must believe) is found in 1 Corinthians 15:1\u20134:<\/p>\n
Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures.<\/p>\n
The content of faith is the gospel, involving the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That which determines whether or not a person is a Christian is his willingness to place his faith, or belief, in Jesus as the substitute for sin. What he must do is described in John 1:12:<\/p>\n
But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name.<\/p>\n
A person who at some point in his life personally received Jesus as the one who made atonement for his sin experiences what it is to become a Christian. It means to trust the Messiah and His work for one\u2019s salvation. Thus if anyone says that he was born a Christian, this is an obvious sign, according to the New Testament, that he is not a Christian. Becoming a Christian is an experience by which one comes to know God through Jesus Christ and by which the sin separating the individual from God is removed. Christians are made, not born.
\nIn summary, the New Testament teaches that everyone is born either a Jew or a Gentile. Christians are Jews and Gentiles who believe in the Messiahship of Jesus.<\/p>\n
(4) Hebrew Christianity\/Messianic Jewishness: Who is a Hebrew Christian or Messianic Jew?<\/p>\n
We finally come to the point toward which we have been working: defining Hebrew Christianity or Messianic Jewishness. If a Jew is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and if a Christian is one who has personally, by his own decision, accepted Jesus of Nazareth as his Messiah, then a Hebrew Christian is a Jew who believes that Jesus is his Messiah. By faith Messianic Jews align themselves with other believers in Jesus, whether Jews or Gentiles, but nationally they identify themselves with the Jewish people.
\nA Hebrew Christian, therefore, must acknowledge that he is both a Jew and a Christian. If a Jew accepts baptism solely to lose his identity as a Jew, he is by no means to be considered a Messianic Jew; he is a renegade, a traitor, and an apostate. A Messianic Jew is proud of his Jewishness. He is also proud of his faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. This was true of the Apostle Paul:<\/p>\n
I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (Rom. 11:1)<\/p>\n
Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. (2 Cor. 11:22)<\/p>\n
\u2026 I yet more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless. Howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and so count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ. (Phil 3:4\u20138)<\/p>\n
This does not mean that he must use the term \u201cChristian.\u201d Thus far, that term as used in this work was defined as to its use in the New Testament. Unfortunately, due to how things developed in Church history, the term has taken on meanings and connotations beyond that of the New Testament usage. The word is no longer an ideal term to use for two reasons. First, not all who call themselves \u201cChristians\u201d really are. The term is now used to describe a religious system rather than personal faith. Second, in Jewish history, most persecutions against the Jews were instigated and carried out by those who called themselves \u201cChristians.\u201d Because that term is no longer used in its strict New Testament meaning, it has become necessary to distinguish \u201cevangelical Christians\u201d or \u201cfundamentalist Christians\u201d from \u201cCatholic Christians\u201d and from \u201cliberal Christians\u201d or \u201cmodernist Christians.\u201d Like the term \u201cPalestinian,\u201d the term \u201cChristian\u201d now carries much more excess baggage. Among Messianic Jews, a more comfortable term is \u201cbeliever.\u201d This has resulted in criticism by a number of Gentile Christians who feel that the term \u201cChristian\u201d is the primary biblical term and assume that avoiding this term means one is ashamed of his faith in Christ. But it should be noted that the term itself is only found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16)\u2014twice in the mouths of critics, not adherents. The term Christian is not a major term in the New Testament. In fact, the primary term for believers in the New Testament is \u201csaints.\u201d Yet this is a term avoided by most evangelicals because today it also carries excess baggage because of its misuse in Catholicism. While the term \u201cbeliever\u201d in its nominal form is not common in the New Testament, the verbal form \u201cto believe\u201d is very common and so the term \u201cbeliever\u201d is perhaps the best term to use today. A Jewish believer is proud of his faith in the Messiahship of Jesus, but does not need to use the term \u201cChristian\u201d unless it is defined in its strict New Testament usage. He does \u201cglory in the cross,\u201d though he would not necessarily use the cross as a visible symbol of his faith.<\/p>\n
b. The Hebrew Christian\/Messianic Jewish Distinctive<\/p>\n
The question that now remains is, what are the Hebrew Christian or Messianic Jewish distinctives in the Body of Christ? In what way, in position and function, does the Hebrew Christian differ from the Gentile Christian? The basis for the Messianic Jewish distinctive lies in four lines of biblical truth: the Abrahamic Covenant, the doctrine of the remnant, the doctrine of the Olive Tree, and the doctrine of the Israel of God.<\/p>\n
(1) The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1\u20133, 7; 13:14\u201317; 15:1\u201321; 17:1\u201321; 22:15\u201318; 26:2\u20135, 24; 28:12\u201315)<\/p>\n
Galatians 3:15\u201318 draws a distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law of Moses:<\/p>\n
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be but a man\u2019s covenant, yet when it hath bean confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise.<\/p>\n
The point being made is that the Law of Moses did not disannul the Abrahamic Covenant. The human illustration used is that of a human contract in antiquity. Once it was signed, it could not be changed. While additions could be made later, these additions could never nullify any point in the original. The Abrahamic Covenant was signed by God Himself when He appeared in the form of fire and walked between the animals which Abraham had prepared (Gen. 15). While the Mosaic Law, coming 430 years later, added to it, the law could in no way change it. Through the cross, however, the Mosaic Law (the addition) was rendered inoperative, but the Abrahamic Covenant (the original) is still very much in effect.
\nIt is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant that provides the first basis of the Hebrew Christian distinctive. The covenant had four major features to it. First, God promised to make a great nation of Abraham. This means the Jews as a whole. The Jews then are a nation because of their origin from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Second, to this nation God has promised a land, once called Canaan, later called Palestine. It is the Land of Israel. It is totally irrelevant whether the Jews are in the land or outside the land or whether anyone else may control it by conquest or any other means, for the land belongs to the Jews by divine right. Third, those that bless this nation will be blessed and those that curse it will be cursed. This is God\u2019s foreign policy to the Gentiles in their relationship to the Jewish people. Fourth, the sign of the covenant for the members of this nation was circumcision, to be performed on the eighth day after birth.
\nSince the Abrahamic Covenant is still very much in effect, these four features also involve the Hebrew Christian, both in his position and function. First of all, Messianic Jews are still Jews, for they, like other Jews, are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Second, the homeland for the Hebrew Christian is the Land of Israel, and this is where his primary loyalty should be despite his place of residence. Hebrew Christians are in the Diaspora, but they are also in the Galuth, the Exile. Third, the Gentile relationship to the Jews in the blessing and cursing aspects are as true for Messianic Jews as for other Jews. Hebrew Christians who are blessed or cursed because of their Jewishness will find the blessers blessed and the cursers cursed. Finally, there is the matter of circumcision. Since Hebrew Christians still fall under the other provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, they fall under this one as well. Hebrew Christians should have their sons circumcised on the eighth day. This point was discussed and defended earlier.<\/p>\n
(2) The Doctrine of the Remnant<\/p>\n
The second basis of the Hebrew Christian distinctive is described in Romans 11:1\u201310, which deals with the Remnant of Israel and was discussed earlier. The point is that in Israel, past, present, and future, it is the remnant that is faithful to the revelation of God. This is also true in this present Dispensation of Grace; the Hebrew Christians are the Remnant of Israel today. The remnant is always within the nation, not outside of it; the Messianic Jews, the present-day remnant, are part of Israel and the Jewish people. Their Jewishness is distinct. It is true that Jewish believers are part of the Church. But the Jewish believers are also the Remnant of Israel, which is always part of the nation of Israel and not separated from it. Jewish believers are part of the Church and part of Israel. There is no need to make it an either\/or situation as Pentecost apparently does.
\nIsaiah 65:8 points out that it is the remnant that is keeping Israel as a whole alive:<\/p>\n
Thus saith Jehovah, As a new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servant\u2019s sakes, that I may not destroy them all.<\/p>\n
Because of the remnant, God did not permit the success of the many attempts throughout this age to wipe out the Jewish people. Again we see position and function in this basis of the Hebrew Christian distinctive.<\/p>\n
(3) The Doctrine of the Olive Tree<\/p>\n
The third basis of the Hebrew Christian distinctive is in Romans 11:16\u201324, which deals with the Olive Tree and was also discussed earlier. In this tree there are two types of branches, representing Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. The Hebrew Christians are the natural branches; that is, they correspond to the very nature of the tree. It is as if the tree and the natural branches have the same blood type. The wild olive branches are the Gentile Christians. It is clearly stated that the presence of these branches in the tree is contrary to nature. The blood type is different. There is an obvious composite difference between the two which makes them distinct from each other, although both are in the same tree.<\/p>\n
(4) The Doctrine of the Israel of God<\/p>\n
The fourth basis of the Messianic Jewish distinctive is seen in the narrow use of the term Israel. Again, the term Israel is never used of Gentiles, whether they are believers or not, nor is it used of the Church. It is used only of Jews. Romans 9:6\u20138 makes the point that there are two Israels: Israel the whole, composed of all Jews; and, Israel the elect, composed of all believing Jews, which is the true Israel of God. Both groups are Jews and both groups are called Israel, the difference being that the Jews who are of Abraham by faith as well as by flesh are the true Israel. Israel the whole, the Israel of the flesh, failed; but the elect of Israel, the Israel of God, has not failed. Hebrew Christians, then, are part of Israel the whole, but in particular they are the Israel of God. Gentile Christians are not in this group. It is a position which is distinct with Messianic Jews.
\nAs for Galatians 6:16, the Book of Galatians is concerned with Gentiles who were attempting to attain justification and\/or sanctification through the law. The ones deceiving them were the Judaizers, who were Jews demanding adherence to the Law of Moses. To them, a Gentile first had to convert to Judaism before he was qualified for salvation through Christ. In verse 15, Paul states that the important thing for salvation is faith, resulting in the new creation. He then pronounces a blessing on two groups who would follow this rule of salvation by faith alone. The first group is the them, the Gentile Christians to and of whom he had devoted most of the epistle. The second group is the Israel of God. These are Messianic Jews who, in contrast with the Judaizers, followed the rule of salvation by faith alone. Again a distinction between the two groups is seen, for the Hebrew Christians alone are of the Israel of God. It is a matter of position which here acts out a definite function.<\/p>\n
(5) Conclusion<\/p>\n
It is clear then that the Messianic Jew is a distinctive element in the Body of Christ, and this distinctiveness is based on four lines provided in the Scriptures. This distinctive feature involves position (Jewish nationality, membership in Israel the whole, the Israel of God [the remnant], the natural branch in the Olive Tree) and function (circumcision, loyalty to Israel, the remnant that is keeping Israel alive, Gentile relationship in blessing and cursing).
\nAlthough distinct from the Gentile Christians, the Hebrew Christians are nevertheless united with them in the Body of Christ. Does not this distinctiveness violate the unity? Not at all. For unity does not mean uniformity. God is a unity, yet the three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are distinct in position and in function (each member performs different roles in dealing with creation). All are equal, yet distinct. Distinctiveness in the Godhead does not violate unity, it only violates uniformity. Looking at the Body of Christ from a different angle, all believers are united in one body, but they are not all uniform. There are differences in position and function. All have spiritual gifts, but not the same number or kind. All are in equal standing before God, yet each is distinct. The same is true for the Jewish and Gentile element in the Body of the Messiah. In Christ, the two are one in unity but not in uniformity. Before God, we are all equal in terms of salvation but distinct in position and function.<\/p>\n
c. The Practice of Hebrew Christianity\/Messianic Jewishness<\/p>\n
If Jewish believers are still Jews, they have a right to express their Jewishness in concrete ways, but it is at this point that there is widespread disagreement and a great deal of variety. The basic issue boils down to one key question: What is the basis or bases for a distinctive Jewish practice? Some look primarily to the Law of Moses and some primarily to rabbinics, but the majority look to both, mixing the two and not always clear which is which. It is important that such practice rest on a solid theological foundation. Based upon all that has been said before, the following propositions can be made.
\nFirst, Messianic Jewish practice can not be based on the Law of Moses as an obligation for the law has been rendered inoperative and is no longer in effect. The stress of this proposition is on the word \u201cobligation.\u201d It would be biblically wrong to impose the Law of Moses as a rule of life upon the Jewish believer. However, freedom from the law means two things: freedom from any obligation to obey any of its commands; and, freedom to obey certain commands. The Jewish believer does not have the freedom to choose to obey many of the commandments, such as sacrificing for sin, for that would violate clear New Testament truths, such as Hebrews 10:18. However, many of the commandments, such as keeping the Sabbath or the dietary rules, would not violate any New Testament imperative and so there is freedom in those.
\nSecond, Messianic Jewish practice cannot be based on Rabbinic Judaism as an obligation. Again, the emphasis is on the word \u201cobligation.\u201d Modern Judaism can be defined simply as the religion of many Jews; it is no longer safe to say most Jews. It has already been demonstrated that Jewishness itself cannot be defined on the basis of religion. In the United States there are three different kinds of Judaism which are \u201crecognized\u201d as valid: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Each is subdivided into lesser and greater degrees ranging from the ultra-orthodoxy of Hasidism to atheism in the Reform movement. In Israel the division is more simple: a person is either religious or non-religious. This distinction is not based so much on what one believes as it is on degree of practice. Modern Judaism is not the same as Biblical Judaism, nor is it the \u201cfather of Christianity.\u201d At best it can be called its brother, and Biblical Judaism is the father of both. Of the different types of Judaism, Hebrew Christianity has more in common with Orthodox Judaism than with the other two major forms. In fact, there is much more common ground between Hebrew Christianity and Orthodox Judaism than between the latter and Reform Judaism. There is an abundance of beauty in Judaism, and Messianic Jews value and appreciate much of it and the part it has played in Jewish history. Nevertheless, they recognize its failure to see messianic fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth. Modern Judaism has many practices, rules, and beliefs which are not found in Scripture but have developed in the course of history through rabbinic and talmudic traditions. These have equal authority in the eyes of Orthodox Judaism. Since the Bible is the only source of authority for the Hebrew Christian, he rejects these practices as binding and obligatory and is free from any need of observing them. However, just as freedom from the law means freedom also to keep certain aspects of the law, so freedom from Judaism also frees the Messianic Jew to keep certain aspects of Judaism, such as the Jewish holy days.
\nThird, there are certain advantages for a Messianic Jew or a congregation to keep some or all of the feasts and to practice other elements of Judaism. First and formost, they provide a good opportunity for the Jewish believer to express and identify with his Jewishness and the Jewish people. This matter of identification is very important as a testimony to the Jewishness of the faith. Second, they provide a basis for teaching Jewish culture and history. This is especially important for instilling Jewishness in the children of Messianic Jews. Third, they provide opportunities to worship God, both individually and corporately, and to thank Him for what He has done in the course of Jewish history, and for what He has done for us in the Messiah\u2019s fulfillment of the Jewish Holy Days. Fourth, they provide good opportunities to share the faith with unbelieving Jewish people, showing how the particular feast points to the Messiahship of Jesus. Fifth, it provides the Jewish believer with a means of practicing his Jewishness. However, there is a danger that must be avoided. Jewish believers cannot celebrate these Holy Days and other Judaistic practices in strict accordance with Judaism. While they are free to copy those things from Judaism which do not go against Scripture, they are not free to use those which do. Many of the services of Judaism cannot be used in their entirety since there are sections which clearly go against the teaching of the New Testament. The prayer book for Yom Kippur and the Haggadah for Passover are examples of this. While many parts present no real difficulty, there are parts which do. Unfortunately, many Hebrew Christians and some messianic congregations have not been careful on this point. Often the traditional Orthodox Jewish service has been used and has resulted unknowingly in statements and practices which are quite contrary to biblical truth. One example is the observance of Sabbath by lighting the candles. This practice was never commanded in the Law of Moses but is of rabbinic origin. However, as it is not forbidden by the New Testament, it is biblically neutral. The Jewish believer is free to kindle the Sabbath lights, but he is also free not to. However, the prayer that goes with it states:<\/p>\n
Blessed art thou O Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to kindle the Sabbath candles.<\/p>\n
The truth is that no such command is found anywhere in Scripture. This prayer is not biblically neutral and a Jewish believer would be wrong to recite this prayer, so he has three options. First, he may choose to dispense with the prayer altogether. Second, he can reword the above prayer to bring it into conformity with biblical truth; the last phrase could read, \u201cpermitted us to kindle the Sabbath candles.\u201d Third, he may choose to make up his own prayer altogether. Messianic Jews are free to participate in these things, but the guiding principle is that of conformity with their faith in Jesus the Messiah and the Scriptures.
\nFourth, among Jewish believers there must be the freedom to permit some to observe much and others to observe little insofar as Jewish practices are concerned. There is no room to either condemn Jewish believers for what they choose to practice (unless it is a clear violation of biblical truth) nor is there valid grounds for condemning other Jewish believers for what they choose not to practice and, therefore, question their Jewish loyalties. From this perspective, the following statement is totally out of line:<\/p>\n
Sabbath is a sign of the covenant through Moses, and like a seal in the center of the ten words. Yet, it is far more and transcends merely Mosaic reference. It has creation dimensions (a memorial of creation) and is seen as a celebration of the Exodus on a weekly basis which is a fulfillment of God\u2019s covenant promise to Abraham, and lastly is part of the Millenial [ sic] order. Accomodation [ sic] during this age was made to not require a day. Yet, with all of these transcending meanings, I am not particularly inspired by the Jewish identity of one who gives up the Sabbath. For me it is part of New Covenantal Jewishness.<\/p>\n
Bypassing the theological issues in the statement since they were dealt with earlier, the offending statement is, \u201cI am not particularly inspired by the Jewish identity of one who gives up the Sabbath.\u201d Juster certainly has the freedom to observe the Sabbath and observe it in the way he chooses, even if the specific way is not in Scripture (i.e. challah, wine, and candles). There is no biblical grounds for denying him this privilege. However, to deny the Jewish identity of another Jewish believer who chooses not to observe the Sabbath is out of order and contradicts New Testament teaching. Since from Abraham to Moses Jewish identity remained intact apart from observing the Sabbath, there is no grounds for making Sabbath observance the key element to determine Jewish identity or loyalties after Jesus.
\nFifth, since Jewish believers have a great deal of freedom in the practice and the living out of a Jewish life style, as with all other ethnic peoples, they have the right to develop Messianic Jewish congregations so that the style of worship and music has a Jewish cultural orientation rather than a Gentile one. Like any other New Testament congregation, it must have open membership to any of \u201clike faith,\u201d regardless of national, ethnic, or racial background. Neither membership nor leadership can be limited to Jews only for that would violate biblical truth. Like individual Jewish lifestyles, the congregational Jewish lifestyle, format, practice, etc., must also conform to New Testament truth and must take priority over rabbinic traditions. Furthermore, even the Messianic Jewish congregations must view themselves biblically and that means they must recognize themselves to be a local church and part of the Universal Church, the Body of the Messiah, and not part of Judaism. This does not mean that they must use the word \u201cchurch\u201d in its name. In light of the negative connotations that the term has developed in the Jewish community because of what happened in Jewish history, it would be unwise for that word to be used; but they must not deny what they are biblically. The issue here is what this congregation is, biblically speaking, and, biblically speaking, it is a church. If this is recognized, then some questionable practices may be avoided, such as calling messianic congregations \u201csynagogues\u201d and the spiritual leader \u201crabbi.\u201d There are other appropriate and acceptable terms, such as a congregation, assembly, etc.
\nFor other relevant issues concerning Hebrew Christianity\/Messianic Jewishness, see Appendix I. Concerning Messianic Jews and the Law of Moses, see Appendix II. Concerning the issue of messianic congregations, see Appendix III.<\/p>\n
9. The Hebrew Christian\/Messianic Jewish New Testament Writings<\/p>\n
Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, four are gospels, one is history, one is prophecy, and twenty-one are epistles.
\nOf the four gospels, the first, Matthew, was written to the Jews. It presents Jesus as the Messianic King of the Jews and develops the kingdom program. For that reason, it is the most important gospel in relationship to Israelology. In the development of Matthew, the King has come (chapters 1\u20132) and has offered the kingdom to Israel while authenticating His messianic claims and offer with miracles, signs and wonders (chapters 3\u201311). However, He was rejected by the leaders of Israel (chapter 12), who eventually led the nation in that rejection and at that point the offer of the Messianic Kingdom was withdrawn from that generation. A new facet of God\u2019s kingdom program, the Mystery Kingdom, was inaugurated (chapter 13). Jesus then spent most of His time with His disciples to train them for their new work that they will have to do as a result of this rejection (chapters 14\u201320). At the end of His public ministry, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the day when the Passover lamb was set aside (the tenth of Nisan), signifying the setting aside of the Passover Lamb of God and He was then tested by four groups of Jewish leaders: Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, and Scribes, and was shown to be without spot or blemish (chapters 21\u201322). The public ministry of Jesus ended with His denunciation of the leadership of Israel, not only for rejecting His Messiahship, but for leading the nation to the rejection of that Messiahship, and concluded that He will not return until the leadership of Israel leads the nation to the acceptance of that Messiahship (chapter 23). Then to the apostles Jesus gave a prophetic discourse explaining the circumstances which would bring about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the result of Israel\u2019s rejection of the Messiah, and the circumstances of Israel\u2019s national salvation which, in turn, will bring about the second coming and the Messianic Kingdom (chapters 24\u201325). The gospel then concludes with the account of the Last Passover in which Jesus declared that He would not partake of it again until the Messianic Kingdom is established, the trial and death by which the atonement was made (chapters 26\u201327). This is followed by the account of the resurrection and the commission that the apostles were to spread the news to all nations (chapter 28).
\nThe one book of history is the Book of Acts, of which the first fifteen chapters are relevant to Israelology. Acts is a continuation of the Gospel of Luke and opens with the resurrected Jesus training His disciples prior to the ascension. With His final commission, the ascension takes place (chapter 1). Ten days later, the Holy Spirit performed His ministry of Spirit baptism, and the Church was born. The gospel is proclaimed to many Jews who are in Jerusalem for Pentecost (chapter 2). The Church continues to grow among the Jews (chapter 3), in spite of opposition from without (chapter 4) and corruption from within (chapter 5). The stoning of Stephen by the Sanhedrin is a final rejection of the apostolic message of the resurrection (chapters 6\u20137). This leads to a dispersion of the Jewish believers throughout the region and, as a result, the gospel spreads to Jewish communities outside the land, even reaching the Samaritans (chapter 8). The main persecutor of the Jewish believers, Saul\/Paul, on his way to Damascus to persecute still more Jewish believers, had his encounter with the resurrected Messiah, became a believer, and was commissioned to carry the gospel to the Gentiles (chapter 9). However, before this takes place, through a special revelation to Peter, the gospel reached the Gentiles for the first time (chapter 10). Jewish believers in Jerusalem were not totally sure what to make of this new turn of events and there is an internal debate over Gentile salvation which is temporarily mooted as Roman authorities through Agrippa I now begin persecuting the Church (chapters 11\u201312). Paul\u2019s first missionary journey and the planting of Gentile churches throughout the Roman Empire intensified the debate concerning the status of uncircumcised Gentiles in the Church (chapters 13\u201314). Finally, the Council of Jerusalem met to decide the issue and, without taking anything away from Hebrew Christianity, decided that Gentile Christianity was valid and proclaimed that Gentiles are savable as Gentiles and need not be circumcised or submit to the Law of Moses (chapter 15). This freed Paul to continue as the Apostle of the Gentiles. He has two more major missionary tours to the Gentiles, though he was always careful to go to the Jews first (chapters 16\u201320). While Paul\u2019s activities were acceptable to Jewish believers, it was not so with Jewish unbelievers, and this led to his imprisonment and trials in Judea (chapters 21\u201326). The book ends with Paul\u2019s journey to and arrival at Rome (chapters 27\u201328).
\nThe one prophecy book is the Book of Revelation, which touches on Israelology, primarily in chapters 7 and 12. These will be discussed under Israel Future.
\nOf the twenty-one epistles, five were specifically written to Jewish believers and are, therefore, most relevant to Israelology: Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, and Jude. These epistles were written to meet specific Jewish needs. The Jewish believers had been scattered as a result of the persecution of Stephen and the Church (Acts 8:1\u20134). The Apostles, however, stayed in Jerusalem. The many who were scattered, no longer able to have free access to an apostle, became as sheep without a shepherd. These epistles were written to instruct the sheep by letter rather than by personal instruction. Later, most of the Apostles also left the land for the Diaspora.
\nFirst century Hebrew Christianity was faced with two major problems: persecution and false doctrine. To deal with the problem of persecution, three epistles were written: Hebrews, James and I Peter. Hebrews was written by a Jewish believer in the Diaspora to Jewish believers in the land. James was written by a Jewish believer in the land to Jewish believers in the Diaspora. First Peter was written by a Jewish believer living in one part of the Diaspora to Jewish believers in another part of the Diaspora. To deal with the problem of false doctrine, two epistles were written: II Peter and Jude. Second Peter was written by a Jewish believer living in one part of the Diaspora to Jewish believers living in another part of the Diaspora. Jude was written by a Jewish believer in the land to Jewish believers living in the Diaspora.
\nFinally, it is important to note that all five epistles were written to Jewish believers who were members of the same generation that rejected the Messiah, a generation under divine judgment. Because these letters were written specifically to Jewish believers to deal with Jewish issues and needs, it must not be assumed that everything said in these epistles is true for all believers or the Church as a whole. Of course, many things written are true for all and are universal truths for all believers; but other things are written which can only be true of Jewish believers.
\nIt is beyond the scope of this work to give a full exposition of these five epistles, so only a survey of each will be given, with special emphasis on the things in the epistles which are largely or exclusively relevant to Jewish believers and, therefore, especially to Israelology. These surveys will be found in Appendix IV.<\/p>\n
C. Israel Future<\/p>\n
This, as has been shown, is Dispensationalism\u2019s strongest suit and so will not require as extensive treatment. However, certain important areas will be highlighted, especially specific points that do not necessarily have a consensus among Dispensationalists or where Dispensationalists have been somewhat unclear. This will, hopefully, make a contribution. This section will be divided into specific eschatological sections.<\/p>\n
1. Israel and the Church Age<\/p>\n
Previously, it was discussed how the State of Israel today fits into the prophetic scheme and no dispensational principles are violated if certain prophecies about Israel are fulfilled while the Church is still on earth. The re-establishment of Israel was one such prophecy. Another issue concerns the Jewish control of Jerusalem. The fact that the Jewish state had to exist before the Tribulation did not necessarily require total Jewish control of Jerusalem. After the end of the Israeli War of Independence in 1948\u20131949, Israeli forces were in control of West Jerusalem, the newer Jewish section. The Old City of Jerusalem (the biblical city) fell into the hands of the Jordanian Legion and was later annexed into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Jerusalem became a divided city and remained that way for the next 19 years.
\nNevertheless, prophetically speaking, the Old City of Jerusalem had to fall under Jewish control. This can be deduced from the prophecies dealing with the Third Jewish Temple, sometimes known as the Tribulation Temple. There are four passages of Scripture which speak of a specific event in relationship to the Tribulation Temple that will occur in the middle of the Tribulation: Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3\u20134; and Revelation 11:1\u20132.
\nThe Jewish Temple will be rebuilt and will begin to function again, for these verses view the Jewish Temple as having been rebuilt and functioning. These verses also presuppose Jewish control of the Temple Compound, and that presupposes Jewish control of the Old City of Jerusalem. While none of these passages spell out a time factor as to when this was to occur, it was clearly fulfilled in the Six Day War. While the Six Day War itself was never predicted in the Scriptures, what it accomplished certainly was. The Six Day War brought about the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the Jewish control of the Old City of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
2. Israel and the Tribulation<\/p>\n
a. The Purposes of the Tribulation<\/p>\n
Of the various purposes for the Tribulation, two are related to Israelology.
\nThe first purpose is to bring about a worldwide revival (Matt. 24:14; Rev. 7:1\u201317). The means by which God will accomplish the second purpose of the Tribulation is found in Revelation 7:1\u20138. In verses 1\u20133, the four angels commissioned to bring judgment on the earth are commanded to hold off their destruction until a specific number of servants are sealed. Sealing was done for two reasons: service and protection. Both reasons apply here. They are sealed for protection so that they cannot be hurt, either by the judgments poured out by God or by the persecutions against believers. They are also sealed for service, for they are the ones who will proclaim the message of the gospel in the Tribulation. In verse four, the identification of those who are sealed is clearly specified as being 144,000 Jews. To make it even more clear, in verses five through eight, twelve tribes are listed with the statement that 12,000 are chosen from each of the twelve tribes listed. Such careful delineation definitely indicates that these 144,000 are Jews and will be nothing else, in spite of much speculation to the contrary. The emphasis is on the Jewishness of the 144,000. There is no reason, exegetically or theologically, to make them a symbol of the Church, a common attempt by Covenant Theologians. This ministry of the 144,000 Jews preaching the gospel fulfills the prophecy of Matthew 24:14:<\/p>\n
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.<\/p>\n
Following the vision of the 144,000 Jews, John saw the results of their ministry in Revelation 7:9\u201317, In verses 9\u201310, John saw a multitude of Gentiles from every nationality and language group standing before the throne of God. The expression after these things means that the salvation of these myriads of Gentiles follows chronologically the 144,000 Jews and there is a cause and effect relationship. After describing the worship of the One on the throne (vv. 11\u201312), the text proceeds to identify who these Gentiles are who are found around the throne (vv. 13\u201314). These Gentiles are identified as those who have come out of the Great Tribulation. They are saved Gentiles for they have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. Since they follow chronologically the ministry of the 144,000 Jews, the implication is that they are the Gentiles who become believers as a result of the preaching of the 144,000 Jews. Because of the massive persecution that these Tribulation saints have undergone, this passage concludes with a description of the comfort they now enjoy in the presence of God (vv. 15\u201317).
\nThe second purpose is to break the power or the will of the Jewish nation. In Daniel 11:36\u201312:4, the prophet was given a vision of what conditions will be like for his people (Israel) during the Tribulation. In Daniel 12:5\u20137, a question is raised as to how long this period will be allowed to continue. The answer is that the persecution of the Jews will last for three and one-half years. This passage then states a goal of the Tribulation: to break the power or the will of the Jewish nation. The Tribulation will continue and will not end until this happens. God intends to break the will of the holy people in order to bring about a national regeneration. The means by which God will perform this purpose is given in Ezekiel 20:33\u201338 where Ezekiel draws a simile with the Exodus. What is important to note here is that after God gathers the Jews from around the world, He will enter into a period of judgment (the Tribulation) with them. The rebels among the Jewish people will be purged out by this judgment; the remainder will turn to the Messiah. Only then will the whole new nation, a regenerate nation, be allowed to enter the millennial Israel under King Messiah.<\/p>\n
b. Israel and the Start of the Tribulation<\/p>\n
Dispensationalism believes that the Rapture will be pretribulational. Many Dispensationalists have, therefore, assumed that the Rapture will begin the Tribulation. However, this is not so for the Tribulation begins with the signing of a seven-year covenant between the Antichrist and Israel. Two key passages bear this out.
\nThe first passage is Daniel 9:24\u201327, which contains the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks or seventy-sevens of Daniel the Prophet. In this passage a 490 year period is decreed over the Jewish people. A careful study of this text will show that the first 483 of the 490 years are now history, having been fulfilled at the time of the first coming of the Messiah. However, there are seven years left to run in God\u2019s prophetic time clock for Israel. These are the same seven years as those of the Great Tribulation. The issue now is: What is the one event that begins these last seven years ticking away? Daniel 9:27 answers that question. This verse speaks of an individual making a seven-year covenant with the Jewish nation. The he refers back to its nearest antecedent which is the prince that shall come in verse 26. This person is better known in Christian circles as the Antichrist. When the Antichrist signs a seven-year covenant with Israel, the last seven years of God\u2019s prophetic time clock for Israel begin ticking away. This and only this is the starting point of the seven years of the Tribulation. In light of this it should be very evident that it is not the Rapture which begins the Tribulation. While the Rapture will occur sometime before the Tribulation, it may come a number of years before the Tribulation. The point is: it is the signing of the seven-year covenant between Israel and the Antichrist that begins the Tribulation, and not anything else.
\nThe second passage is Isaiah 28:14\u201322. In verse 14, God calls the ones making this covenant scoffers. He considers them mockers rather than serious leaders. Verse 15 gives the reason God considers them thus and provides God\u2019s viewpoint of the covenant itself. It is obvious that the leaders of Israel will enter into this covenant in order to obtain some measure of security and to escape the overflowing scourge. The figure of a flood, when used symbolically, is always a symbol of a military invasion. Hence, the leaders of Israel will believe that by entering the covenant, they will be free from any further military invasions. However, God declares that this is not a covenant of life, but a covenant of death. It is not a covenant of heaven, but a covenant of hell. Rather than gaining security, they will receive a strong measure of insecurity. Verse 16 speaks of the remnant who refuse to enter into the covenant. Verses 17\u201322 describe the results of the making and the breaking of the covenant. The key result is the wrath of God emphasized in verses 21\u201322. Two of the Old Testament names for the Tribulation are given in this passage: Jehovah\u2019s strange work and Jehovah\u2019s strange act. It is given these two unusual names because of the latter phrase in verse 22, for a decree of destruction have I heard from the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, upon the whole earth. This decree is issued in heaven because of the covenant that is signed on earth. It is strange in that it calls for the destruction of the whole earth. The same point made in Daniel 9:27 is made by Isaiah. The Tribulation begins with the signing of the seven-year covenant between the leaders of Israel and the Antichrist. Once that covenant is signed, the Tribulation begins and a decree of destruction is issued by God Himself.
\nHere, Israelology can serve to clarify specifics of Dispensational Eschatology that have often been unclear and confusing.<\/p>\n
c. Israel in the Tribulation<\/p>\n
Though the whole world will be involved in the Great Tribulation, it will particularly affect Israel as is evident from the massive amount of Old Testament Scripture concerning this time period.<\/p>\n
(1) The Time of Jacob\u2019s Trouble<\/p>\n
The uniqueness of the Tribulation\u2019s relationship to Israel is especially brought out in Jeremiah 30:4\u20137. While the Scriptures have many names for the Great Tribulation, in this passage a name is given that directly relates the Tribulation to the Jewish nation: the time of Jacob\u2019s trouble. While it is true that all will suffer during that time, Israel will suffer more so. The basic reason for this lies in Israel\u2019s relationship to God as God\u2019s first born (Exod. 4:22) and, therefore, receives double both in blessing and cursing. The principle that Israel receives double for all her sins is stated in Isaiah 40:1\u20132 and Jeremiah 16:16\u201318. This is the reason the Tribulation is uniquely the Time of Jacob\u2019s Trouble.<\/p>\n
(2) General Description<\/p>\n
A graphic general description of Israel in the Tribulation is found in Isaiah 3:1\u20134:1. Verses 1\u201315 describe the effects of the Tribulation on the Jewish leaders. This is followed in 3:16\u20134:1 with a description of the effects on Jewish women. It will involve a removal of their luxury items (3:16\u201324) and a sharp reduction of the male population until there will be seven Jewish women for each Jewish male (3:25\u20134:1).<\/p>\n
(3) The Day of Jehovah Passages<\/p>\n
There are five \u201cDay of Jehovah\u201d passages that directly relate the Great Tribulation to Israel: first, Ezekiel 13:1\u20137 describes the Day of Jehovah in relationship to the false Jewish prophets in the Tribulation. The multiplication of false prophets among Israel will require a massive cleansing, described in Zechariah 13:2\u20136. Second, in Joel 2:1\u201311, the Day of Jehovah is depicted as a time of darkness and invasion. Third, in Joel 3:14\u201317, the Day of Jehovah is described as the time of refuge for Israel. Fourth, in Amos 5:18\u201320, the Day of Jehovah is again depicted as the time of darkness. Fifth, in Zephaniah 1:7\u201313, the Day of Jehovah is portrayed as being especially heavy against Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
(4) Worldwide Anti-Semitism and the Persecution of the Jews<\/p>\n
The breaking of the seven-year covenant marks the beginning of a worldwide persecution of the Jews. Two key passages describe what will happen to the Jewish people during the Tribulation.
\nThe first passage is Matthew 24:15\u201328. In this passage, Christ provided a warning sign to those Jews living at the time the covenant is broken and the Abomination of Desolation occurs, which commences the persecution of the Jews (vv. 15\u201320). They are warned that as soon as they hear of that event happening, they are to get out of Israel and to do so quickly. The emphasis is on a speedy flight. The reason for the flight is because at this point, worldwide anti-Semitism breaks out. The worldwide persecution of the Jews begins and will continue for the next three and one-half years (vv. 21\u201322). Verses 23\u201328 contain a special message directed to the believing remnant within Israel, warning them not to heed any rumor that the Messiah has returned and so come out of hiding. When the Messiah does return, all will be able to see Him and it will be known by all. While all Jews are persecuted, a special emphasis of deception is aimed against the believing remnant.
\nA second passage describing the flight of the Jews out of Israel is Revelation 12:1\u201317. The passage begins with a historical review and summary in verses 1\u20135. These verses summarize the entire life of Jesus, from just before His birth to His ascension. John saw two signs in the heavens. In the first sign (vv. 1\u20132), Israel is pictured as a woman (v. 1); a motif taken from the Old Testament concept of Israel as the Wife of Jehovah. The sun, moon, and twelve stars are common Old Testament figures relating to Israel. The Old Testament background for this sign is Joseph\u2019s dream in Genesis 37:9\u201311. From this passage John\u2019s vision can easily be interpreted. The sun represents Jacob, who was renamed Israel, and both these names were often used to represent the entire nation (e.g., Isa. 40:27; 49:5; Jer. 30:10, et al.). The moon represents Rachel, who in turn represents Jewish women, especially Jewish motherhood (Jer. 31:15; Matt. 2:18). The twelve stars represent the twelve sons of Jacob, who fathered the twelve tribes of Israel. Clearly then the Woman arrayed with the sun, moon, and stars is representative of Israel (not the Church). In verse two, this woman is seen in the final stages of pregnancy about to give birth to a child. The vision then is of the nation of Israel just before the birth of the Messiah. A good reason this cannot be the Church is that it would be an anachronism with the Church giving birth to Christ, whereas the opposite is true. Then John described the second sign. The Great Red Dragon is Satan in all his fierceness (v. 3). In verse four, the two signs come together. Satan made an effort to slaughter the child about to be born. This attempt to destroy the child was the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem in Matthew 2:16\u201318. Verse five points out the failure of Satan\u2019s attempt to destroy the child. The child, destined to rule the nations with a rod of iron, survived until His proper time for death came. After His resurrection. He ascended into heaven and is presently seated at the right hand of God the Father.
\nAfter this historical survey, John\u2019s vision moves forward to events that will occur in the middle of the Tribulation, one of which is in verse six:<\/p>\n
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that there they may nourish her a thousand two hundred and threescore days.<\/p>\n
As in the Matthew passage, the Woman pictured here is in flight. With Satan\u2019s attempt to destroy the child thwarted, Satan turns against the nation that produced Him. Satan\u2019s perpetual hatred of Israel is based on the fact that it is through Israel that God will fulfill His program of redemption. Furthermore, in this passage, the time of Israel\u2019s flight and hiding is given as 1,260 days or three and one-half years. This refers to the second half of the Tribulation.
\nThe next section of this chapter, verses 7\u201312, gives the reason or cause of Israel\u2019s flight Satan is cast out of his present abode and confined to the earth for the next three and one-half years. Verses 7\u201312 are somewhat parenthetical, providing the reasons for Israel\u2019s flight in verse six.
\nThe next section, verses 13\u201317, takes up where verse six left off. Verse 13 states that once Satan is cast down to earth he persecutes the Woman, Israel. Verse 13 should be connected with verse six as giving a further explanation for Israel\u2019s flight into the wilderness. It should also be connected with verse 12, which concluded that there was woe for the earth, for Satan is full of wrath. The reason is that he knows his time is short; namely, three and one-half years. Knowing this, he persecutes Israel. In verse 14, Israel flees info the wilderness where she is nourished for a time, times and a half a time, which is the same as the three and one-half years of verse six. In verse 15 the persecution is described in terms of the waters of a river causing a flood so that Israel might be drowned or destroyed by the flood. Again, whenever the figure of a flood is used symbolically, it is always a symbol of a military invasion. However, this invasion will fail in its attempt to destroy the Jews (v. 16). Israel will succeed in fleeing into the wilderness after being pursued by the invading army. The passage closes by further describing the wrath of Satan because of his initial failure to destroy the Jews (v. 17). In this closing verse, as in the case of the Matthew passage, Satan will then make war specifically against the believing remnant among the Jews, for it states that he now goes to make war with the rest of the Woman\u2019s seed; namely, these who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus. These will include all Jewish believers among the Jews at that time, as well as the 144,000 Jews.<\/p>\n
(5) Israel and Satan<\/p>\n
Revelation 12:1\u201317 is the central passage describing Satan\u2019s relationship to Israel during the Tribulation. At that time there will be an all-out, satanically organized campaign to wipe out the Jews once and for all on the model of the Nazi\u2019s \u201cFinal Solution.\u201d<\/p>\n
(6) The Final Result<\/p>\n
To what extent will Satan succeed in destroying the Jews? Zechariah 13:8\u20139 provides the answer:<\/p>\n
And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith Jehovah, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, Jehovah is my God.<\/p>\n
In the Holocaust, under Hitler, one-third of the world Jewish population died. Under the fierce persecution of the Antichrist, controlled and energized by Satan, two-thirds of the Jewish population will die. This will be the largest and most intense persecution of the Jews ever known in Jewish history.<\/p>\n
(7) Israel and Michael<\/p>\n
Michael, besides being the Archangel, is also the Chief Prince and the protective guardian angel assigned to Israel. The key passage pointing out Michael\u2019s relationship to Israel in the Tribulation is Daniel 12:1:<\/p>\n
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.<\/p>\n
The fact that Israel will survive at all is due to the ministry of the Archangel and Chief Prince, Michael.<\/p>\n
(8) The Four Groups of Jews<\/p>\n
During the Great Tribulation period there will be four distinct groups of Jews. The first group can be entitled the Apostate Jews. These are the many of Daniel 9:27 who will enter the seven-year covenant that will begin the Tribulation. They will comprise about two-thirds of the nation, and will die in the worldwide persecution in the Tribulation.
\nThe second group is known as the 144,000 Jews. They are part of the one-third that will survive the Tribulation. These are the Jews who will be saved and sealed sometime after the Rapture of the Church. They will be evangelists during the first half of the Tribulation, conducting a worldwide revival.
\nThe third group can be entitled as Other Hebrew Christians. These are Jews who will receive the Messiah via the preaching of the 144,000, the Two Witnesses or some other way, but are not part of that number.
\nThe fourth group is called the Faithful Remnant. Since they are the key group involved in the second half of the Tribulation, they will be dealt with separately.<\/p>\n
(9) The City of Refuge<\/p>\n
Earlier, mention was made of the Jews in flight, particularly the Faithful Remnant. Thus far, no particular spot has been pinpointed. Up to now, three clues have been provided. One clue was in Matthew 24:16: Then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains. According to this text, the place of flight and refuge is to be the mountains.
\nThe second and third clues were given in Revelation 12:6. Not only must the place of refuge fulfill the requirement of being in the mountains, it must also fulfill this second requirement of being in the wilderness. Thirdly, the place in the wilderness was prepared by God in advance, which indicates a very adequate place of refuge.
\nThese are the three clues found in passages examined earlier. Although inconclusive, another passage which may have a bearing on the question of \u201cwhere\u201d is found in Isaiah 33:13\u201316. Since the context is dealing with end-time events, this passage also points out a distinction between the apostates and the Faithful Remnant as far as their protection and preservation is concerned. The means by which protection for the remnant will be accomplished is given in verse 16:<\/p>\n
He shall dwell on high;
\nHis place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks;
\nHis bread shall be given him;
\nHis waters shall he sure.<\/p>\n
This passage gives some insight as to the nature of the hiding place itself. First, it is stated that it will be on high; that is, in the mountains, thus reaffirming the Matthew passage. Second, it adds that the place of defense will be the munitions of rocks, that is, the very nature of the place will make it easy to defend.
\nThis brings the total to four clues. The refuge will be:<\/p>\n
1. In the mountains;<\/p>\n
2. In the wilderness;<\/p>\n
3. A place prepared in advance;<\/p>\n
4. A very rocky defensible place.<\/p>\n
Another passage, Micah 2:12, pinpoints the place exactly:<\/p>\n
I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as a flock in the midst of their pasture; they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.<\/p>\n
The remnant is gathered together as the sheep of Bozrah. Since the sheep of Bozrah are not any different than other sheep, this gathering together as the sheep of Bozrah simply means that they are to be gathered in Bozrah. The ancient city of Bozrah was located in the region of Mount Seir. Mount Seir is a very rocky range of mountains, and its name means the \u201chairy mountains.\u201d This fulfills the requirement of the Matthew passage. It is located in the wilderness section of ancient Edom and so fulfills the requirement of the Revelation passage. The very nature of the chain of mountains of Mount Seir makes it quite defensible, fulfilling the requirements of the Isaiah passage. Mount Seir is located on the western side of ancient Edom, extending from southeast of the Dead Sea down to the city of Akaba. It towers over the Arabah, part of the rift valley from the south shore of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Eilat. Today the area is in southern Jordan. The city is now known as Petra.
\nAnother reason this city was chosen is revealed in the context of Daniel 11:40\u201345. This passage concerns the conquests of the Antichrist in the middle of the Tribulation as he begins his world political takeover. The key verse which bears upon the discussion here is in verse 41:<\/p>\n
He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall he overthrown; but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.<\/p>\n
The passage states that while the Antichrist will conquer the whole world, three nations will escape his domination: Edom, Moab and Ammon. All three of these ancient nations currently comprise the single modern state of Jordan. The city of Bozrah in Mount Seir is located in ancient Edom or southern Jordan. Since this area will escape the domination of the Antichrist, it is logical for the Jews to flee to this place. Thus, God will provide a city of refuge outside the Antichrist\u2019s domain for the fleeing remnant. It will be a very defensible city located in Mount Seir. Furthermore, as they flee and while they are living there, food and water will be miraculously provided.<\/p>\n
d. The Remnant of Israel<\/p>\n
The remnant is that part of Israel that believes. In the Tribulation, there will also be a believing remnant.<\/p>\n
(1) The Remnant of Israel During the Tribulation<\/p>\n
All individual Jews who become believers during the seven years of the Tribulation are part of the Remnant of Israel. These include the 144,000 Jews. These also include those Jews of Jerusalem who become believers in the middle of the Tribulation (Rev. 11:13). It includes all individual Jews who become believers as a result of the preaching of the 144,000 or the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11. it includes the remnant of Revelation 12:17 whom Satan will attack in a particular way.<\/p>\n
(2) The Faithful Remnant<\/p>\n
There will be a large segment of the Jewish population who will become members of the Remnant of Israel only at the end of the Tribulation. These can be called the Faithful Remnant. Based upon all the passages involved, this group will comprise the majority of the one-third of the nation that will survive the Tribulation, Throughout the Tribulation they will be unbelievers as far as the Messiahship of Jesus is concerned and also unbelievers as far as the Antichrist is concerned. These are the \u201cnonmany\u201d of Daniel 9:27 who will refuse to have anything to do with the covenant. They are the ones who shall not be in haste of Isaiah 28:16. They are \u201cfaithful\u201d in the sense that they will believe in the God of Israel to the extent of Old Testament revelation and this is their trust. However, at the end, they will come to know Jesus as Messiah.<\/p>\n
(a) The Fact of the Remnant<\/p>\n
The fact that the remnant will survive is found in Isaiah 10:20\u201323:<\/p>\n
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again lean upon him that smote them, but shall lean upon Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. For though thy people, Israel, be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return: a destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness. For a full end, and that determined, will the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, make in the midst of all the earth.<\/p>\n
Verse 20 states that unlike the rest of Israel, they will lean on the Holy One of Israel, In verse 21, Isaiah declares that ultimately they will return to the God of Israel, a return that can only be accomplished by faith in the Messiah Jesus, Verse 22a points out that in spite of the numerical strength of the Jews, only the remnant will return to God. Verses 22b\u201323 talk about a decree of destruction that has been determined upon the whole earth which the remnant will survive, The words used here are much the same as those found in Isaiah 28:22 where the decree of destruction is issued with the signing of the seven-year covenant beginning the Tribulation. Synthesizing these two Isaiah passages together, it is clear that the remnant will survive the persecution of the Jews and the massive destruction of the earth during the Tribulation. Hence they are referred to as the escaped of Israel here and in Isaiah 4:2; 37:31\u201332; Joel 2:32; and, Obadiah 17.<\/p>\n
(b) The Protection of the Remnant<\/p>\n
Another section of Isaiah, 41:8\u201316, records the protection of the remnant by God\u2019s presence with the remnant:<\/p>\n
But thou, Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend, thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth, and called from the corners thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not cast thee away; fear thou not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God; I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. Behold, all they that are incensed against thee shall be put to shame and confounded: they that strive with thee shall be as nothing, and shall perish. Thou shalt seek them, and shalt not find them, even them that contend with thee: they that war against thee shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought. For I Jehovah thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee. Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith Jehovah, and thy Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel. Behold, I have made thee to be a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth; thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. Thou shalt winnow them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them; and thou shalt rejoice in Jehovah, thou shalt glory in the Holy One of Israel.<\/p>\n
This is a promise to preserve the remnant in the midst of tremendous persecution during Satan\u2019s campaign to destroy the Jews.<\/p>\n
(c) The Provision for the Remnant<\/p>\n
According to Isaiah 41:17\u201320, just as in the wilderness of Sinai God miraculously provided food and water for Israel, He will do so again in the Tribulation when the Jews flee to the wilderness:<\/p>\n
The poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst; I Jehovah will answer them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them. I will open rivers on the bare heights, and fountains in the midst of the valleys; I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water. I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, and the myrtle, and the oil-tree; I will set in the desert the fir-tree, the pine, and the box-tree together; that they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of Jehovah hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it.<\/p>\n
These miraculous provisions will cause them to reconsider their relationship to God. In another passage, Isaiah 65:8\u201316, the prophet describes how on one hand God will supply for the Faithful Remnant, whereas He will withhold provisions from the apostates:<\/p>\n
Thus saith Jehovah, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants\u2019 sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains; and my chosen shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me. But ye that forsake Jehovah, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for Fortune, and that fill up mingled wine unto Destiny; I will destine you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter; because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but ye did that which was evil in mine eyes, and chose that wherein I delighted not. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be put to shame; behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall wail for vexation of spirit. And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen; and the Lord Jehovah will slay thee; and he will call his servants by another name: so that he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.<\/p>\n
This passage makes clear that while the apostates will be allowed to suffer and die, the Faithful Remnant will be divinely protected and provided with food and water. By this means the Faithful Remnant will be able to survive the persecutions and devastations of the Great Tribulation.<\/p>\n
3. Israel and the Second Coming<\/p>\n
a. The Basis of the Second Coming of Christ<\/p>\n
The Rapture of the Church has no preconditions and can come at any moment. However, the second coming of Christ does have a major precondition that must be met before Christ will return to establish the Messianic Kingdom. What this condition is can be deduced from five passages of Scripture. The first passage is Leviticus 26:40\u201342:<\/p>\n
And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their trespass which they trespassed against me, and also that, because they walked contrary unto me, I also walked contrary unto them, and brought them into the land of their enemies: if then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.<\/p>\n
In Leviticus 26, Moses predicted how, because of disobedience to God\u2019s revealed will, the Jews would be scattered all over the world. According to the New Testament, this came as a direct result of the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus. By verse 39, the world-wide dispersion is a fact. Up to this point, Leviticus 26 has been fulfilled. In verse 42, Moses states that God has every intention of giving to Israel all the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, especially as the covenant pertains to the Promised Land. However, before they can begin to enjoy these blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant during the Messianic Kingdom, it is first necessary for them to fulfill the condition of verse 40: \u2026 they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers. Something to notice is that the word iniquity is in the singular and that it is specific. There is one specific iniquity committed by the fathers and continued by them which Israel must confess before she can begin to enjoy all of the benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant.
\nThe second passage is Jeremiah 3:11\u201318. In verses 14\u201318, Jeremiah describes the blessings which God has in store for Israel in the Messianic Kingdom. It will be a time of tremendous blessing and restoration for the Jewish people when the kingdom is established by their Messiah. However, all of these blessings are conditioned by verse 13 where they must acknowledge or confess one specific iniquity which they committed against Jehovah their God.
\nThe third passage is in the Book of Zechariah. Chapters 12\u201314 are a single unit of thought containing one prophecy God gave the prophet. Chapter 13 speaks of the national cleansing of Israel from their sin. Chapter 14 describes the second coming of the Messiah (vv. 1\u201315) and the establishment of the kingdom (vv. 16\u201321), However, the cleansing of Israel followed by the second coming of Christ and the Messianic Kingdom are all conditioned on Zechariah 12:10:<\/p>\n
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son. and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.<\/p>\n
Before Israel will receive the cleansing of her sin, and before Christ will return to establish His kingdom, Israel must first look unto the One whom they have pierced and must plead for His return. Once they do this, then, and only then, will they receive their cleansing and begin to enjoy the blessings of the Messianic Age.
\nThe fourth passage is in Hosea five. The One who is doing the speaking throughout the chapter is God Himself, and God is still speaking in verse 15:<\/p>\n
I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me earnestly.<\/p>\n
There are certain presuppositions behind the understanding of this verse. Before anyone can return to a place, he must first leave it. In this passage God states that He is going to return to His place. God\u2019s place is heaven. Before God can return to heaven, He must first leave it. God left heaven at the incarnation when He became man, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Then, because of one specific offense committed against Him, He returned to heaven at the ascension from the Mount of Olives. This verse further states that He will not come back to the earth until the offense that caused Him to return to heaven is acknowledged or confessed. The national Jewish offense committed against the person of Jesus is not, as so many people think, in killing Him. The actual killing of Christ was done by Gentile, not Jewish, hands. He was condemned and sentenced by a Gentile judge. He was crucified by Gentile soldiers. All this is ultimately irrelevant, for regardless of Jewish acceptance or Jewish rejection, Jesus would have had to die anyway to become the sacrifice for sin. The national offense of Israel was in the rejection of His messiahship. According to this verse, only when this offense is acknowledged or confessed will Christ come back to the earth.
\nThe fifth passage is in Matthew 23 which contains Christ\u2019s denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees, the Jewish leadership of that day, for leading the nation in the rejection of His messiahship. He was still speaking to them in verses 37\u201339:<\/p>\n
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n
Speaking to the Jewish leadership, Christ reiterated His original desire to gather them if they would only accept Him (v. 37). Because of their rejection of His messiahship, in place of being gathered they are going to be scattered. Their house, the Jewish Temple, will be left desolate and will be destroyed with nothing remaining (v. 38). He then declares that they will not see Him again until they say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord (v. 39). This is a quotation of a messianic Psalm, Psalm 118:26.
\nJesus will not come back to the earth until the Jews and the Jewish leaders ask Him to come back. Just as the Jewish leaders led the nation to the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus, they must some day lead the nation to the acceptance of the Messiahship of Jesus. This, then, is the twofold basis of the second coming of Christ: Israel must confess her national sin and then plead for Messiah to return, to mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son. Until these two things happen, there will be no second coming.<\/p>\n
b. The National Regeneration of Israel and Romans 11:25\u201336<\/p>\n
It has been pointed out previously when speaking of the basis of the second coming of Christ that there are two facets to this basis: first, there must be the confession of Israel\u2019s national sin (Lev. 26:40\u201342; Jer. 3:11\u201318; Hos. 5:15) and, second, a pleading for the Messiah to return (Zech. 12:10; Matt. 23:37\u201339).<\/p>\n
(1) The Confession of Israel\u2019s National Sin<\/p>\n
Hosea 6:1\u20133 states:<\/p>\n
Come, and let us return unto Jehovah; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him. And let us know, let us follow on to know Jehovah: his going forth is sure as the morning; and he will come unto us as the rain, as the latter rain that watereth the earth.<\/p>\n
This passage is actually a continuation of Hosea five. The chapter division is unfortunate, because it breaks the train of thought. This passage contains the acknowledgment of the sin demanded in 5:15. Verses 1\u20133 are in the form of a call issued by the Jewish leaders exhorting the nation to repent and confess their national sin (vv. 1\u20132). Only then will the physical blessings Israel once enjoyed be restored to her (v. 3). The leaders of Israel will finally recognize the reason the Tribulation has fallen on them. Just as the Jewish leaders once led the nation to the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus, they will now lead the nation to the acceptance of His messiahship by issuing the call of Hosea 6:1\u20133. The confession of Israel\u2019s national sin will last for two days as the entire nation becomes regenerated and saved. The national confession of Israel is given with its actual words in Isaiah 53:1\u20139. In this confession, they admit that the nation had looked upon Jesus as nothing more than another man, a criminal Who had died for his own sins. However, on this occasion they recognize that He was no ordinary man, but the perfect Lamb of God, the Messiah Himself. Furthermore, it was not for His own sins that Messiah died, but for theirs, so that they need not be stricken for their sin. Thus, the national regeneration will come by means of the national confession of Isaiah 53:1\u20139. The nation as a nation will be saved.<\/p>\n
(2) Romans 11:25\u201336<\/p>\n
This will be a fulfillment of Paul\u2019s prophecy of Romans 11:25\u201332. With the connection and explanatory for, connecting this verse with 11:24, Paul made a clear declaration of Israel\u2019s final restoration (vv. 25\u201326a). He pointed out that there were limitations to Israel\u2019s hardening in that Israel was hardened only in part and only temporarily (v. 25). There was a partial hardening, but never a total hardening, and that was also the point of 11:1\u201310. The fact that there are Jewish people coming to saving faith proves that the hardening was partial, but Israel was hardened for only a temporary period of time. They were hardened in part until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. The Greek word translated as fulness means \u201ca full number\u201d or \u201ca complete number.\u201d In other words. God has a set number of Gentiles that He has destined to come into the place of blessing, the Olive Tree of verses 16\u201324. After the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, after that set number is reached, then all Israel will be saved. According to Acts 15:14, one of the purposes of the Church Age is to call out from among the Gentiles a people for His name. While there is a Jewish remnant coming to faith in this age, another key purpose is to take out from among the Gentiles a people for His name. This calling out from among the Gentiles will continue until the fulness, that set number of Gentiles, is reached. At that time, the Church will be complete and will be removed at the Rapture. Then God will deal with Israel as a nation again, rather than just with Jewish individuals. This national dealing will lead to all Israel being saved (v. 26a). When Paul stated all Israel, he meant all Jews living at that time, not all Jews of all time. In some circles, verse 26a has been misinterpreted to mean that all Jews will eventually be saved and, therefore, Jewish evangelism and Jewish missions are unnecessary. However, that is not what the passage teaches. For example, the Bible speaks of all Israel, the whole congregation of Israel, coming out of Egypt at the Exodus. Of course, not all Jews who ever lived came out of Egypt, but every Jew who lived at that time did come out of Egypt. This is the same way verse 26a should be interpreted. It means that every Jew living at that time will be saved. The mystery of this passage is not that of Israel\u2019s national salvation, for that was revealed in the Old Testament. The mystery is that of a partial, temporary hardening of Israel until a full number of Gentiles is reached. The Israel of this verse most refer to national Israel for that has been its meaning the other ten times Israel has been used since chapter nine (which even Covenant Theologians admit) and there is no reason to make this verse the one exception, especially since it makes perfect sense and is a contrast to the Gentiles in the previous verse.
\nPaul next related Israel\u2019s future national salvation with its present status (11:26b\u201329). He first gave the evidence of Israel\u2019s future salvation out of the Old Testament (vv. 26b\u201327) by quoting Isaiah 59:20\u201321 and 27:9. This truth was then analyzed (v. 28): As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. The alienation of Israel in spite of the covenant promises is God\u2019s way of bringing Gentiles to Himself. As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for the Gentiles\u2019 sake.\u2026 but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers\u2019 sake. The election refers to Israel\u2019s national election as being the chosen people of God. The fathers\u2019 sake relates to the covenants God has made with Israel, particularly the Abrahamic Covenant made with the Patriarchs (the fathers). God, being the covenant-keeper, for His sake, will fulfill His covenants; and part of that covenant promise is the national salvation of Israel. For now, Israel has been partially hardened. As a result, the hardened element is an enemy of the gospel. Eventually, God must bring the whole nation to Himself because they are beloved for the fathers\u2019 sake. He has made covenant promises to them that He must fulfill. The reason He must fulfill them (v. 29) is the unconditional and unchanging nature of God\u2019s promises: the gifts and the calling of God are not repented of. The calling has to do with Israel\u2019s national election and the gifts are the covenantal promises which are the result of that election. Neither are subject to being recalled; they are irrevocable.
\nIn verses 30\u201332, Paul provided the principle for what is going to happen concerning the calling out of the Gentiles and Israel\u2019s national salvation. He pointed out that unbelief has given God a chance to reveal His mercy, not on the deserving, but on the undeserving. Once the Gentiles were disobedient but now have obtained mercy. Now Israel is in disobedience and so the Jews have been put on the level where they are eligible for mercy, for God has shut up all that He might have mercy on all, and that is the summary of the gospel. This is all without distinction, not \u201call\u201d without exception, because within this context he is dealing with the nationalities of Jews and Gentiles and not with all individuals. He will have mercy upon all without distinction, meaning all, both Jews and Gentiles, but not all without exception. Obviously, not all people will be saved as individuals, but there will be salvation both among Jews and Gentiles as nationalities. If anyone is saved at all it is by God\u2019s mercy.
\nPaul concludes his Israelology with a doxology in 11:33\u201336. As Paul reflected on God\u2019s plan and program in relationship to Israel, how He brought Israel into this state, how He is calling from among the Gentiles today to bring many of them to salvation, how this Gentile calling will come to an end someday, and how God will again deal with Israel and bring them all to salvation, he concludes with this tremendous doxology. This doxology extols the wisdom of God and the riches of God in that wisdom. Indeed, if we fully understand God\u2019s dealings with the Jewish people, if we clearly understand God\u2019s plan and program for Israel, and if we appreciate it from God\u2019s standpoint we, too, will have to say the doxology that Paul said: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!<\/p>\n
(3) The Pleading for the Messiah to Return<\/p>\n
The second facet leading to the second coming is the pleading of Israel for the Messiah to return and save them from the world armies intent on their destruction. The pleading of the Jews for the Messiah to come and save them is the subject of much revelation. One example is found in Zechariah 12:10\u201313:1. The pleading of Israel for the Messiah to return will begin with the confession of the national sin, and then they will plead for His return to save them from the troubles described in the preceding context. They plead for the one whom they have pierced. This will be the result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
\nAnother prophecy of this event is in Joel 2:28\u201332. Regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit, and here the nation of Israel will be regenerated because of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on them creating some dramatic manifestations in their midst (vv. 28\u201329). This will be accompanied by wonders in the heavens as well (vv. 30\u201331). The result of all this is that the Jews will be delivered (v. 32).
\nThat the remnant comes to a saving knowledge of Jesus the Messiah by way of the fires of the Tribulation is summarized in Zechariah 13:7\u20139. Verse seven gives the basic reason why the events of the Tribulation will fall on Israel: God\u2019s Shepherd, the Messiah, was smitten and so His sheep, Israel, were scattered throughout the world. Toward the latter end of the dispersion will come the Great Tribulation through which two-thirds of the Jewish population will be killed (v. 8). The remaining third will be refined. By means of the national confession of their sin, they will be purified (v. 9). God will then answer their pleading for Him to come and save them. They will once again be His people, and He will be their God.
\nIsaiah 64:1\u201312 also describes the pleading for the second coming of Christ. The passage begins with the pleading for the Lord to come down and let the nations realize His presence (vv. 1\u20132), The Remnant of Israel will remember the mighty works of God in the past (vv. 3\u20137) and seek those mighty works of God again (v. 8). They will ask for the forgiveness of their sins (v. 9). Their disastrous plight is shown by the fact that Jerusalem had been made a desolation by the nations (vv. 9\u201310) and the Temple was still defiled (v. 11). The passage ends with a plea for God to intervene lest they, too, become ruined (v. 12).
\nSeveral of the Psalms are poetic versions of the pleading of the remnant for God to come and save them from the invading armies. One such passage is Psalm 79:1\u201313. After recalling the events of the fall of Jerusalem, with the city in ruins, the Abomination of Desolation of the Temple, and the death of so many Jews (vv. 1\u20134), they will plead for God to come down, to rescue them and to pour His wrath out on the Gentile nations (vv. 5\u20137), They will plead for the forgiveness of the sins of their forefathers (as demanded by Leviticus 26:40) who led the nation to the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus as well as for the forgiveness of their own sins (vv. 8\u20139). On the basis of what these Gentile nations have done to Israel, they will ask God to avenge them as He had promised and to save them from their enemies (vv. 10\u201312). Then they will give thanks and sing the praises of God forever (v. 13).
\nAnother Psalm that describes the pleading of the remnant is Psalm 80:1\u201319. This Psalm opens with a pleading for the Shepherd of Israel to come and save them (vv. 1\u20132). Not only will they plead for their physical deliverance, but also for their spiritual salvation (v. 3). The phrase turn us again points to the repentance and conversion by which we shall be saved. After describing the bitter state they find themselves in, having become the laughing stock of the nations, they will plead once again for God to come and save them (vv. 4\u20137), Recalling God\u2019s past dealings with Israel from the Exodus to the kingdom of David and Solomon (vv. 8\u201311), they will mourn over their present state of having been brought down by the Gentile nations (vv. 12\u201313). Therefore, they will appeal to God to turn to them and defend the cause of Israel which had been so badly bruised (vv. 14\u201316). The specific person they are pleading for is the one on God\u2019s right hand (v. 17) referred to as the son of man. This is none other than Jesus the Messiah who has been sitting at the right hand of God the Father ever since the ascension from the Mount of Olives after He was rejected by Israel. Only by faith in the Son of Man can Israel be regenerated. Only by calling upon the name of the Lord can Israel be saved spiritually (vv. 18\u201319). Only by the return of the Son of Man can Israel be saved physically.
\nIn conclusion, Israel as a nation will be regenerated and saved after two days of national confession of sin. On the third day they will plead for the second coming of Christ, This will be followed by the second coming itself.<\/p>\n
c. The Remnant of Israel<\/p>\n
According to Romans 11:25\u201327, all Israel will be saved. According to Isaiah 10:20\u201323, only the remnant will be saved. This is not a contradiction if it is understood in the context of Israel\u2019s national salvation. As Zechariah 13:8\u20139 has pointed out, two-thirds of the Jewish population will be destroyed in the persecutions of the Tribulation. This will include the entire non-remnant so that only the remnant will survive, the escaped of Isaiah 4:2; 10:20; 37:31\u201332; Joel 2:32; and Obadiah 17. Since the remaining one-third become believers, at that point all Israel and the remnant of Israel become one and the same, as Micah 2:12\u201313 makes clear. Hebrew poetry used parallelism and the first parallel is:<\/p>\n
I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee;
\nI will surely gather the remnant of Israel.<\/p>\n
The all of thee and the remnant of Israel are one and the same for with Israel\u2019s national salvation the whole nation now becomes part of the remnant (v. 12). Because of Israel\u2019s national salvation, Messiah returns to rescue them (v. 13).<\/p>\n
d. The Judgment of the Gentiles<\/p>\n
Though a great many Gentiles will be killed through the course of the Tribulation and Gentile armies will suffer slaughter in the Campaign of Armageddon, a number will still be living. Following the second coming, all these will now be gathered together for a judgment described in two passages of Scripture.
\nThe first passage is Joel 3:1\u20133. The timing of this judgment is given as being in conjunction with the restoration of Israel (v. 1). All the Gentiles will be gathered into the Valley of Jehoshaphat for the judgment (v. 2a). A judgment of this nature, resulting in a destiny of eternal life or eternal hell, cannot be a national judgment, but individual. The word translated nations also means \u201cGentiles,\u201d and this is the way it should be translated. The grounds for this judgment will be anti-Semitism or pro-Semitism (vv. 2b\u20133). All these Gentiles will be judged on the basis of their treatment of the Jews during the Great Tribulation. The sins committed against Israel listed in this indictment are: first, scattering the Jews (in the middle of the Tribulation); second, parting the land (Campaign of Armageddon); and, third, selling the Jews into slavery (Zech. 12:1\u20132). Each Gentile living at that time will be judged on the basis of his participation or his refusal to participate in these deeds.
\nThe results of this judgment are given in the second passage, Matthew 25:31\u201346. The judge, the judgment, and those judged are identified in 25:31\u201333. The judge (v. 31) will be Jesus the Messiah, who will sit on a throne encompassed by His glory in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. All the Gentiles still living will be gathered before Him for the judgment (v. 32). Again, the Greek word translated nations is also the common word for \u201cGentiles.\u201d The latter is the way it should be taken, for once again this is an individual judgment on the basis of anti-Semitism or pro-Semitism. In this judgment, all the Gentiles will be divided into two camps: the pro-Semitic sheep camp and the anti-Semitic goat camp (v. 33). Verses 34\u201340 concern the pro-Semitic sheep. The pro-Semites are those who will provide help for Christ\u2019s brethren, the Jews, during the Great Tribulation, at a time when it will be very dangerous to do so. The Jews who will have to flee into the wilderness without anything with them will often be provided with food, clothing and shelter by the sheep Gentiles. They will identify themselves with the Jews by visiting the Jews in prison and will perform other acts of kindness for the Jews. Because of these acts they will be allowed to enter the Messianic Kingdom. They will be the ones who will populate Gentile nations in the Messianic Kingdom. Verses 41\u201345 discuss the anti-Semitic goat Gentiles. The anti-Semites who will aid the Antichrist in the program of Jewish destruction will be killed and sent to hell and, consequently, lose out on the millennial blessing. The basis of the judgment will not be salvation or lack of it, but anti-Semitism or pro-Semitism. This fact stirs up a question when compared with 25:46:<\/p>\n
And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.
\nhe children of Abraham are Jews. Arabs are as much the<\/p>\n
The goats will be condemned to eternal punishment, whereas the sheep will not only enter the kingdom (v. 34), but. they will also inherit eternal life. Is their salvation based on their works be they anti-Semitic or pro-Semitic? Not at all. The Scriptures make it quite clear that salvation is always by grace through faith, totally apart from works. During the Tribulation, the Jews will become the dividing line for those who are believers and for those who are not. Only believers will dare to violate the laws of the Antichrist and aid the Jews. Their pro-Semitic acts will be the result of their saved state. As James would say it, they will show their faith by their works. The unbelievers will demonstrate their unbelief by their anti-Semitic acts. The judgment of the Gentiles, then, will determine who among the Gentiles will be allowed to enter the Messianic Kingdom. Only believing Gentiles will be allowed, and the evidence of their faith will be their pro-Semitic works.<\/p>\n
e. The Resurrection of the Old Testament Saints<\/p>\n
The Rapture will include only the Church saints and it will occur before the Great Tribulation. After the second coming, the Old Testament saints will be resurrected. This is stated by two Old Testament passages: Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2. With this resurrection, the unfulfilled covenantal promises will finally be fulfilled to them.<\/p>\n
4. Israel and the Messianic Kingdom<\/p>\n
a. The Basis for the Belief in the Messianic Kingdom<\/p>\n
Dispensationalists have often been criticized for basing their belief in a Millennium entirely on one passage of Scripture, Revelation 20. Because it is found in a book well rioted for its high use of symbols, the critics claim that it is foolish to take the one thousand years literally. Such a criticism is a valid one against Covenant Premillennialism, but it is not a valid criticism against Dispensational Premillennialism. To begin with, while it is true that the Book of Revelation uses many symbols, the meaning of all those symbols is explained either in Revelation itself or elsewhere in the Scriptures. Furthermore, never are years used in a symbolic way in this book. If they are symbolic, the symbolism is nowhere explained. The mention of 1,260 days, 42 months, and 3\u20131\/2 years are all literal and not symbolic. Hence, there is no need to take the one thousand years as anything but literal years. The desire to spiritualize the text always places the burden of proof on the interpreter. Without objective proof it will result in a subjective interpretation. It is of course true that the figure of one thousand years is only found in Revelation 20. However, it is recorded six different times in this one text; if repetition tries to do anything, it certainly endeavors to make a point. While it is true that the Millennium (that is, one thousand years) is found only in Revelation 20, for the Dispensationalist the belief in the Messianic Age does not rest on this passage alone. In fact, it hardly rests on it at all.
\nThe basis for the belief in the Messianic Age is based on two things. The first is the numerous prophecies of the Old Testament which speak of the coming of the Messiah who will reign on David\u2019s throne and rule over a peaceful kingdom. There is a great amount of material in the Old Testament on the Messianic Kingdom and the belief in a Messianic Kingdom rests on the basis of a literal interpretation of this massive material. The only real contribution that Revelation makes to the knowledge of the kingdom is to disclose just how long the Messianic Kingdom will last, namely one thousand years, for which the term \u201cMillennium\u201d is used. This is the one key truth concerning the kingdom that was not revealed in the Old Testament.
\nThe second basis for the belief in a coming kingdom rests on the four unconditional, unfulfilled covenants God made with Israel. These covenants are unconditional and so rely solely on God for their fulfillment and not on Israel. They are also unfulfilled and, since God is One who keeps His promises, they must be fulfilled in the future. They can only be fulfilled within the framework of a Messianic Age or a Millennial Kingdom. More will be said about these covenants in the next segment, but the main points will be summarized here. The first of these is the Abrahamic Covenant which promised an eternal seed developing into a nation that will possess the Promised Land with some definite borders. While that nation, the Jews, continues to exist, never in Jewish history have they possessed all of the Promised Land. For this promise to be fulfilled, there must be a future kingdom. Furthermore, the possession of the land was not merely a promise to Abraham\u2019s seed, but to Abraham personally when God said: To thee will I give it and to thy seed forever. For God to fulfill His promise to Abraham (as well as to Isaac and Jacob), there must be a future kingdom. The second covenant is the Palestinian Covenant which spoke of a worldwide regathering of the Jews and repossession of the land following their dispersion. While the dispersion has already occurred and is in effect today, the regathering and repossession of the land still awaits fulfillment in the future. This too requires a future kingdom. The Davidic Covenant is the third covenant which promised four eternal things: an eternal house (dynasty), an eternal throne, an eternal kingdom, and an eternal person, The dynasty became eternal because it culminated in a Person who is Himself eternal: Jesus the Messiah. For that reason, the throne and kingdom will be eternal as well. Jesus has never yet sat upon the Throne of David ruling over a kingdom of Israel. The re-establishment of the Davidic throne and Christ\u2019s rule over the kingdom still awaits a future fulfillment. It requires a future kingdom. The last of these covenants is the New Covenant, which spoke of the national regeneration and salvation of Israel encompassing each individual Jewish member of that nation. This, too, awaits its final fulfillment and requires a future kingdom.
\nIsrael, in the period of the Messianic Kingdom, is a major theme of the Old Testament prophets. Indeed, it was the high point of Old Testament prophecy and every writing prophet with the exception of Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Malachi had something to say about it. To spiritualize and allegorize away such a great amount of Scripture is to confuse the whole science of interpretation. There is no reason to spiritualize any of these prophecies any more than there is reason to do so to those prophecies dealing with the first coming of Christ, such as the virgin birth, the birth in Bethlehem, His death, or His physical resurrection, etc. it is the extensive prophetic writings as well as the unfulfilled portions of these covenants that provide the basis for the belief in the future Messianic Kingdom, and not merely one chapter of a highly symbolic book.<\/p>\n
b. The Four Facets of the Final Restoration of Israel<\/p>\n
There are four primary facets to Israel\u2019s final restoration with each being based on a specific covenant. Each of these covenants is further developed in later prophetic revelation. This section will survey each covenant as it relates to Israel\u2019s final restoration, along with the prophetic development of these covenants.<\/p>\n
(1) The Regeneration of Israel<\/p>\n
(a) The Basis: The New Covenant<\/p>\n
The first facet of Israel\u2019s final restoration is the national regeneration of Israel. The timing of this regeneration has already been discussed. This section is concerned with the development of that motif. The basis of Israel\u2019s final regeneration is the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31\u201334. The announcement of the New Covenant begins with a declaration that it will be a Jewish covenant for it will be made with both houses of Israel (vv. 31). It will be in sharp contradistinction with the older Mosaic Covenant (v. 32). Of the five Jewish covenants, the Mosaic was the only conditional one. Although God had been faithful in keeping His terms of the covenant, Israel had not been faithful, resulting in the Mosaic Covenant being broken; while the Mosaic Covenant showed the standard of righteousness which the law demanded, it could never impart to the Jew the power to keep it. However, that problem will be rectified in the New Covenant (v. 33) through regeneration which will provide the internal power necessary to meet and to keep the righteous standards of God\u2019s law. The result of the New Covenant will be a total national regeneration of Isrel (v. 34). Every Jew will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest. The sins of Israel will be forgiven and forgotten. While there will be Gentile unbelievers in the kingdom, there will not be Jewish unbelievers in the kingdom. It is upon the New Covenant that the first facet of Israel\u2019s restoration, the regeneration of Israel, is based.<\/p>\n
(b) The Prophetic Development<\/p>\n
That Israel was to undergo a national regeneration is not confined to the words of the New Covenant alone. Some passages were already discussed under Israel\u2019s national salvation; but there are many others.
\nIn Isaiah 29:22\u201324, a promise is made to the patriarch Jacob. Although for most of Jewish history Jacob would have been ashamed of the waywardness of his descendants, when the national regeneration comes, he will have much to be proud of. According to Isaiah 30:18\u201322, the regeneration will be a result of the judgments of the Great Tribulation which will be God\u2019s discipline upon the nation of Israel in order to correct them. It will be by way of the judgments of the Tribulation that Israel will come to a saving knowledge of her Messiah. Later in Isaiah 44:1\u20135, the prophet states that it was God who chose Israel from the very beginning (vv. 1\u20132), and Israel has yet to become the chosen vessel for which she was ordained. God will pour out His Spirit upon the entire nation (v. 3) with the result that Israel will begin to bear fruit (v. 4) and will remain ever loyal to her God (v. 5), Later in this chapter, in verses 21\u201323, Isaiah emphasized the removal of Israel\u2019s sins. Israel\u2019s everlasting salvation and freedom from shame is emphasized in Isaiah 45:17:<\/p>\n
But Israel shall be saved by Jehovah with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be put to shame nor confounded world without end.<\/p>\n
The two other major prophets also spoke of this final regeneration. Jeremiah 24:7 records that when God regenerates Israel, He will give them a heart to know the Lord. With this regenerated heart, they will be able to return to God with an undivided heart. At the time of Israel\u2019s regeneration, her sins will no longer be found, according to Jeremiah 50:19\u201320.
\nEzekiel also emphasized that future regeneration of Israel, and in 11:19\u201320 he states that at the time of Israel\u2019s regeneration, they will be given a new heart and a new spirit as their human spirit will be reborn (v. 19). The result of this work of God on the heart and spirit of man will be an enablement to walk in and to keep the righteous standards of God (v. 20). Later, in Ezekiel 36:25\u201327, repeating aspects stated earlier, he adds some more information of his own as he describes the coming regeneration. All of Israel\u2019s sins will be cleansed (v. 25). A regenerate heart and spirit will be given so that Israel can walk in newness of life (v. 26). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit will indwell the Jews so that they will be empowered to walk in the commandments of the Lord (v. 27).
\nThe regeneration of Israel is also a prominent theme in the Minor Prophets. Hosea, who spoke a great deal about God\u2019s punishment for Israel\u2019s sins, did not fail to speak of Israel\u2019s regeneration. One such passage is Hosea 1:10\u20132:1. Though judgments will decimate the ranks of Israel, nevertheless, the time will come when Israel will increase tremendously in population (v. 10a). Even though for a long period of time they were lo ammi (not my people), they will once again become ammi (my people), the people of God (v. 10b). When the reunification comes, they will be God\u2019s people who have obtained God\u2019s mercy (1:11\u20132:1). Hosea not only begins his book with Israel\u2019s regeneration, but he also ends with it in Hosea 14:4\u20138. Israel\u2019s backslidings will all be thoroughly healed (v. 4), for only then will Israel receive the manifold blessings of God (vv. 5\u20137). All worship of other gods will cease when the regeneration comes (v. 8). That this regeneration of Israel will be a result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the point of Joel 2:28\u201332. Once the Holy Spirit is poured out on all Israel, then they will call upon the name of the Lord. God will respond to that call by delivering and saving them. The national regeneration of Israel will result in the total forgiveness of Israel\u2019s sins, according to Micah 7:18\u201320. God\u2019s loyal love for Israel will cause Him to pardon and to pass over the sins of Israel when He will return to them in all compassion (vv. 18\u201319). He will do so on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant (v. 20), especially as it is developed in the salvation aspect by the New Covenant. Another prophecy which spoke of Israel\u2019s regeneration is Zephaniah 3:9\u201313. Throughout the dispersion the Jews will begin to call upon the name of the Lord. It is important to note that regardless of where the Jews are, they will respond so that the regeneration will indeed be total.
\nOne final passage is Romans 11:25\u201327, discussed earlier. As Paul brings to a conclusion his lengthy treatment of the place of Israel in the program of God, he points out that the present blindness and hardening of Israel is not a permanent one. It is temporary until the full number of Gentiles preordained for the Body of Christ is reached (v. 25). It is then that the hardening of Israel will be removed, and all Israel living at that time will be saved (vv. 26\u201327).<\/p>\n
(2) The Regathering of Israel<\/p>\n
(a) The Basis: The Palestinian Covenant<\/p>\n
The second facet of the final restoration of Israel is the regathering of Israel from all over the world. This is based on the Palestinian Covenant of Deuteronomy 29:1\u201330:20. The passage begins with a clear statement that the Palestinian Covenant is distinct and different from the Mosaic Covenant (29:1). The former is eternal and unconditional while the latter is both temporal and conditional. Moses then records in summary form the forty years of wilderness experience leading up to the point of being about to enter into the Promised Land (29:2\u20139). However, before entrance into the land can occur, another covenant needs to be made in order to warn them of things to come (29:10\u201313). They are warned against turning away from the Lord (29:14\u201321). The passage then proceeds to state that they will do exactly that, resulting in the dispersion out of the land into the Gentile nations to endure a long period of many persecutions (29:22\u201329). But this dispersion out of the land is not permanent, because eventually there will be a regathering as described in Deuteronomy 30:1\u201310. After the long period of persecution, there will ultimately be the regeneration of Israel as the people return to the Lord (30:1\u20132). Following the regeneration of Israel will be the regathering from all over the world (30:3) so that even if Jews should be found in the uttermost parts of the heavens, they will nevertheless be returned (30:4) and brought back into the Promised Land (30:5). This regathering will occur only after the regeneration of Israel (30:6), at which time the punishments previously applied to Israel will now be applied to the Gentiles (30:7). Although curses may fall on the Gentiles, there will only be blessings for Israel (30:8\u20139) because they will totally return to the Lord (30:10). The Palestinian Covenant ends with some further admonitions, warnings and promises (30:11\u201320).<\/p>\n
(b) The Prophetic Development<\/p>\n
The regathering of Israel, following the regeneration, is another high point of prophetic revelation to be found in many of the prophets. In Isaiah 11:11\u201312:6, the final regathering is described as the second of the world-wide regatherings of Israel. The first regathering is the one in unbelief prior to the Great Tribulation in preparation for judgment. The regathering described in this passage is the second one (v. 11a), in faith and in preparation for the millennial blessings. This regathering is not merely local from the nations of the Middle East (v. 11b), but from all over the world (v. 12). Isaiah then goes on to develop certain characteristics of Israel\u2019s final regathering. First of all, the unity between Israel and Judah will be restored (vv. 13\u201314). Second, the final regathering will be accompanied by miracles (vv. 15\u201316). The tongue of the Egyptian Sea, the Gulf of Suez, will dry up while the Euphrates will be smitten and split up into seven smaller streams so as to make the regathering that much easier. As a highway was made for Israel at the Exodus, there will likewise be one again in the final regathering. This will result in songs of praise (vv. 1\u20136). Later, in Isaiah 27:12\u201313, the prophet emphasized the totality of the regathering, for every Jew one-by-one will be brought back into the Land of Israel. The magnitude of the final regathering of Israel is described in Isaiah 43:5\u20137. As far as locality is concerned, the regathering will be worldwide and, to emphasize the fact, all four points of the compass are mentioned (vv. 5\u20136). The magnitude is then illustrated by the usage of three words: created, formed, and made (v. 7). These three words are used interchangeably in the creation account of Genesis 1\u20132. Hence, from God\u2019s perspective, the final regathering will be on the magnitude of the original creation.
\nThe comparative magnitude of the final regathering with previous works of God is something Jeremiah also pointed out. In Jeremiah 16:14\u201315 it is compared with the Exodus. Throughout Jewish history, the Exodus has been considered the high point of Jewish history, but after the final regathering this will change (v. 14). In the future it will be the final regathering of the Jews that will become the high point of Jewish history (v. 15). Later, in Jeremiah 23:3\u20134, the prophet stated that from all over the world the Jews are to be regathered into the land where they will produce much fruit (v. 3). Furthermore, God will provide righteous leaders who will feed the people with righteousness, justice, and understanding (v. 4). Then there is another comparison with the Exodus in Jeremiah 23:7\u20138. One other passage in Jeremiah that speaks of the regathering is found in 31:7\u201310. Following the regeneration of Israel (v. 7), all the Jews will be regathered, regardless of their state of health and regardless of their location (v. 8). There will be no hindrances whatsoever to the regathering (v. 9), for the same One who was able to scatter them will also be able to regather them (v. 10).
\nEzekiel picked up the same motif in 11:14\u201318. The same God who scattered Israel (vv. 14\u201316) has every intention of regathering them back into their own land (v. 17) so that regenerate Israel can cleanse the land of all pollution (v. 18). Later, the prophet restated this doctrine in Ezekiel 36:24.
\nThe Minor Prophets were not remiss in speaking of the regathering. One such prophecy is in Amos 9:14\u201315. The emphasis of Amos is on permanency. Israel is to be regathered in order to rebuild the land (v. 14). In the final regathering, God will plant them in the land so that they will never again be uprooted and dispersed out of the land (v. 15). The prophet Zephaniah, whose whole theme was one of judgment, closed his book with a promise of the final regathering in Zephaniah 3:18\u201320. The judgment meted out against Israel is the result of her sins (v. 18\u201319). These judgments will not have a destructive effect, but a corrective one. Once correction takes place, the regathering will indeed occur, and the final regathering will cause Israel to be a name and a praise among the Gentile nations (v. 20). The final prophet of the Old Testament to speak of the regathering is Zechariah in 10:8\u201312. As Zechariah portrayed the final regathering, he saw it in terms of hissing which is the call of a shepherd for his scattered sheep (v. 8a). The regathering will be a result of the redemption and regeneration of Israel (vv. 8b\u20139). While the regathering is to occur from around the world, there will be a special emphasis upon the Middle East nations (vv. 10\u201311). Once all the Jews are regathered, they will never again depart from the Lord (v. 12).
\nIn the New Testament, the final regathering revealed by the Old Testament prophets is summarized in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27. In this passage, Jesus stated that the angels will be involved in the final regathering and they will bring the Jews back into the land. As to locality, the emphasis is on the world-wide regathering. The two passages are a simple summary of all that the prophets had to say about the second facet of Israel\u2019s final restoration. The Matthew passage is based on Isaiah 27:12\u201313 and the Mark passage is based on Deuteronomy 30:4. Its purpose was to make clear that the world-wide regathering predicted by the prophets will be fulfilled only after the second coming.<\/p>\n
(3) The Possession of the Land<\/p>\n
(a) The Basis: The Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
The third facet of the final restoration of Israel is the possession of the land encompassing two aspects: its total boundaries and its productivity. The basis for this facet is the Abrahamic Covenant as found in various passages of the Book of Genesis. The first passage to deal with the land aspect is Genesis 12:1\u20133. At the time the covenant was initially made, Abram was simply told to leave for a land that God would show him. When he arrived in the land, God again revealed Himself to Abram in Genesis 12:7. In this verse, the promise is stated in such a way that it is Abram\u2019s seed that is to possess the land. From this passage alone, it might be concluded that Abram himself was never to possess the land. That is not the case, however, as another passage on the Abrahamic Covenant makes clear, Genesis 13:14\u201317. Although for the time being the area of grazing was divided between Abram and Lot, ultimately all the land that Abram could see is to be possessed by him (vv. 14\u201315). The promise is clearly made that the land is to be possessed by Abram personally as well as by Abram\u2019s seed. Since Abram\u2019s seed is to possess the land as well, the population of Israel will greatly increase at that time (v. 16). Abram was then directed to walk throughout the land in order to get to know it well, for someday he will possess it (v. 17). Thus far, Abram was only told that all the land he could possibly see would be possessed by him, but no exact boundaries were given. Later however, as God confirmed the covenant, the exact boundaries were given in Genesis 15:12\u201321. At the time of the signing and the sealing of the Abrahamic Covenant, God spelled out the future history of Abram\u2019s seed prior to their initial possession of the land (vv. 12\u201316). Then God signed and sealed the covenant (v. 17) and declared what the boundaries of the land will be (vv. 18\u201321). The borders are to extend from the Euphrates River in the north to the River of Egypt in the south. Yet, Abram died having never possessed any part of the land except for a few wells and a burial cave which he had to purchase. In order for God to fulfill His promise to Abram, two things have to occur. Abram must be resurrected, and the land must be restored to Israel.
\nAfter Abraham, the covenant was reconfirmed to and through Isaac, in Genesis 26:2\u20135. Isaac is commanded to stay in the land and not leave it (v. 2), for it is to Isaac and Isaac\u2019s seed that the land will be given (v. 3). It should be noted that the promise of possession of the land is not merely to Isaac\u2019s descendants, but to Isaac himself, requiring Isaac\u2019s future resurrection and possession of the land. As for Isaac\u2019s seed, it will be greatly increased in number (v. 4). It is to Isaac, and not Ishmael, that the Abrahamic Covenant is reconfirmed (v. 5).
\nAfter Isaac, the Abrahamic Covenant is reconfirmed to and through Jacob in Genesis 28:13\u201315. It is to Jacob, and not to Esau, that the covenant is now reconfirmed (v. 13a). The promise is made that the land will be given to both Jacob and to Jacob\u2019s seed (v. 13b). Again, the possession of the land is not a promise to the seed only, but to the individual, Jacob, as well. For this reason Jacob must also be resurrected and possess the land. As previously, the seed will be greatly multiplied at that time (v. 14). As for Jacob himself, who was now departing from the land, God will bring him back in his own lifetime (v. 15).
\nSo then, it is on the Abrahamic Covenant, which is reconfirmed through Isaac and Jacob and then to all of Jacob\u2019s descendants, that the third facet of Israel\u2019s final restoration is based.<\/p>\n
(b) The Prophetic Development<\/p>\n
This third facet of Israel\u2019s final restoration, the possession of the land, was further developed in both the law and the prophets. As far as the law is concerned, it is found in Leviticus 26:40\u201345. Following the regeneration of Israel (vv. 40\u201341), God will fully carry out the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant concerning the land (v. 42). On the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant, He will restore to them the land that has laid desolate for so long (vv. 43\u201345). In another part of the law, the possession of the land is also part of the Palestinian Covenant in Deuteronomy 30:5.
\nThe prophets of Israel developed this facet even further in both the Major and Minor Prophets. One passage is Isaiah 27:12. In this passage, the first aspect (the borders of the land), is brought out. The northern (Euphrates River) and the southern (the Brook of Egypt) boundaries are possessed for the first time in all of Israel\u2019s history. Israel will be able to settle in all of the Promised Land. In another passage, Isaiah 30:23\u201326, the second aspect (increased productivity of the land) of the third facet is stressed. The land will be well watered and will produce abundant food both for men and animals (vv. 23\u201325). Furthermore, there will be a tremendous increase of light with the moon shining as brightly as the sun, while the light of the sun will be increased seven times what it is today. As for the deserts of Israel, Isaiah 35:1\u20132 states:<\/p>\n
The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon: they shall see the glory of Jehovah, the excellency of our God.<\/p>\n
Isaiah later brought out the productivity aspect again in 65:21\u201324. With the possession of the land of Israel, not only will the Jews be able to build houses and plant vineyards and crops (v. 21), but they will also enjoy the work of their hands, for no enemy will take it from them (vv. 22\u201323). They will enjoy it until a ripe old age (v. 24).
\nAnother major prophet, Jeremiah, also stressed the greater productivity of the land in the final restoration. According to Jeremiah 31:1\u20136, because of God\u2019s everlasting love for His people (vv. 1\u20133), He intends to restore and build them again (v. 4). Once again for Israel there will be a time of plenty (v. 5), and the hills of Ephraim will echo with the call to come and worship God in Jerusalem (v. 6). Later, in the same passage, Jeremiah returned to the theme in 31:11\u201314. After the redemption of Israel (v. 11), they will be restored to the land which will produce an abundance (v. 12), giving joy to all the inhabitants of the land (vv. 13\u201314).
\nAfter Jeremiah, the next major prophet, Ezekiel, picked up the motif of the possession of the land in Ezekiel 20:42\u201344. Israel is to be brought back into their land in accordance with the promises of God to the forefathers in the Abrahamic Covenant (v. 42). Israel will turn away from her sins of the past and will detest them (v. 43) and now serve God alone (v. 44). Later, in Ezekiel 28:25\u201326, following her regeneration and regathering, Israel will then possess the land in accordance with the Abrahamic Covenant (v. 25). The security in which Israel will live and enjoy the works of her hands is then emphasized (v. 26). The security aspect, along with the element of increased productivity, is the theme of Ezekiel 34:25\u201331. Since there will no longer be any wild beasts in the land, Israel will be able to enjoy the land in total security (v. 25). The rains will come in their proper time and in proper amounts (v. 26) increasing the productivity (v. 27a). Not only is Israel to be secure from the wild beasts, but also from all her enemies of the past (vv. 27b\u201328). None will come to destroy the crops (v. 29). In every way Israel will be rightly related to God and will be His peculiar possession (vv. 30\u201331). Nor is this the end of the subject as the prophet continued in Ezekiel 36:8\u201315. In spite of years of desolation, the land is to be tilled again (vv. 8\u20139) and populated; that is, the inhabitants of the land will be greatly increased (vv. 10\u201311). Israel will again possess the land (v. 12), and the production of the land will be tremendous (vv. 13\u201315). Later in this passage, the prophet further elaborated in Ezekiel 36:28\u201338. Ezekiel declared that Israel will again possess the land (v. 28) as a result of her regeneration (v. 29). The reproach of Israel will be removed (v. 30), and Israel will detest her past sins (v. 31). It is not for Israel\u2019s glory (v. 32) that the regeneration (v. 33), possession (v. 34) and the rebuilding of the land (v. 35) will occur, but it is for God\u2019s own glory among the nations (v. 36). As for Israel, the population will increase and the desolate places will be rebuilt (vv. 37\u201338).
\nThe possession of the land is also promised in the Minor Prophets, such as in Joel 2:18\u201327. God will be jealous for His land (v. 18), and this burning jealousy will bring about a great productivity in the land (v. 19). The land will be secure from any further invasions (v. 20), and it will produce abundantly (vv. 21\u201322). The rains will come at the proper seasons and in proper amounts (v. 23), causing a tremendous amount of surplus in their storage (v. 24), recuperating all previous losses due to pestilences (v. 25). Israel will never again be shamed (v. 26), but will have a special relationship to God (v. 27). Later, in Joel 3:18, the prophet declared that there will be an abundance of water in the land. The increased productivity of the land is again pointed out in Amos 9:13.
\nTo summarize, for the first time in Israel\u2019s history, she will possess all of the Promised Land while the land itself will greatly increase in its productivity and be well watered, all on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant.<\/p>\n
(4) The Re-Establishment of the Davidic Throne<\/p>\n
(a) The Basis: The Davidic Covenant<\/p>\n
The fourth facet of the final restoration of Israel is the re-establishment of the Davidic throne. This is based upon the Davidic Covenant found in two passages of Scripture.
\nThe first is in 2 Samuel 7:11b\u201316. In this covenant, David is first promised that he will be the head of a dynasty (v. 11b). After David dies, the throne will go to one of his sons (Solomon) and the kingdom will be established in his hand (v. 12). If is Solomon who will build the Temple and so God will establish his throne (not Solomon himself) for eternity (v. 13). Solomon will sin and God will have to discipline him, but God\u2019s loyal love will not be removed from Solomon as it was from Saul (vv. 14\u201315). Nevertheless, the Davidic house, or dynasty, the Davidic throne and the Davidic kingdom will be eternal (v. 16). The emphasis in this first account of the Davidic Covenant has been on Solomon.
\nA slightly different emphasis is given in the second passage in 1 Chronicles 17:10b\u201314. The emphasis in this passage is not on Solomon, but on the Messiah. David is promised a dynasty (v. 10b). Sometime after his death, a descendant of one of his sons will be established in the kingdom (v. 11). The Samuel passage spoke of one of David\u2019s own sons, Solomon; but Chronicles speaks of a descendant of one of David\u2019s sons, namely the Messiah, who was a descendant of Nathan, a son of David. This descendant of David, the Messiah, will also build God a temple, the Millennial Temple, and His throne will be established forever (v. 12). God\u2019s mercy will never be removed from this One (v. 13). Since the Samuel passage emphasized Solomon, there was the possibility of sin. Since the Chronicles passage emphasized the Messiah, there is no possibility of sin and, hence, no mention of sin. Finally, it is this Person Himself who is established forever and not merely the dynasty, kingdom, and throne (v. 14).
\nIn essence then, the Davidic Covenant promised four eternal things: an eternal dynasty, an eternal kingdom, an eternal throne, and an eternal person. The eternalness of the dynasty, kingdom, and throne are guaranteed only because the Seed of David culminated in the Person who is Himself eternal.
\nChrist holds three offices: prophet, priest, and king. However, He does not function in all these offices simultaneously. Rather, the functioning of these three offices is to be carried out in chronological sequence. During His ministry on earth at His first coming, Christ functioned in His office of a prophet. However, this ceased at the time of His death. Since His death and resurrection, and until He returns, Christ is functioning in His office of a priest. This duty will cease at the second coming of Christ. Jesus has never yet functioned in His office of a king. For Him to do so, there must be the re-establishment of the Davidic throne, upon which Christ will sit to rule as king over Israel and king of the world. This duty will begin at the second coming.<\/p>\n
(b) The Prophetic Development<\/p>\n
While this facet of Israel\u2019s final restoration has not been as fully developed as the others, it has not been totally ignored. Psalm 89 is totally devoted to this theme. In this passage, God states that He has made an eternal covenant with David (v. 3), including the establishment of an eternal dynasty and an eternal throne (v. 4). The eternalness of the dynasty and the throne is restated later in verse 29. Still later, in verses 34\u201337, David states that the continuation of the covenant is not dependent upon David or upon his descendants, but upon God\u2019s character (v. 34). Since God does not lie, the covenant is sure to stand (v. 35). For that very reason, the eternalness of the dynasty and the throne is assured (vv. 36\u201337).
\nMessiah ruling upon the re-established Throne of David and ruling over a kingdom is the theme of Isaiah 9:6\u20137. A child is born into the Jewish world who is a son of the House of David upon whom the reins of government will rest. (v. 6a). Yet, names are given to this child that can only be true of God Himself (v. 6b). The eternity of the Davidic dynasty, throne, and kingdom is assured for it rests in the God-Man. As to His humanity, He is a descendant of David. As to His deity, He is eternal and so is His throne. With these facts clearly established, Isaiah proceeds to describe the establishment of the rule of Christ. The government that will be set up will increase in authority and in peace. Nor will there be any end to the Throne of David or of the rule of Christ, for it is the God-Man who will establish it and who will uphold it. It will be characterized by justice and righteousness forever. The guarantee that it will be so established is the burning zeal of God, a zeal that will continue to burn until the kingdom is realized. Since God\u2019s zeal intends to perform it, it will surely come about (v. 7). To this statement, Isaiah 16:5 adds:<\/p>\n
And a throne shall be established in lovingkindness; and one shall sit thereon in truth, in the tent of David, judging, and seeking justice, and swift to do righteousness.<\/p>\n
As if to reiterate this previous statement, Isaiah declares again that a throne will surely be established on the basis of God\u2019s loyal love. The One sitting on the throne will be a member of the House of David who will be characterized by truth. He will be King and Judge, ensuring that justice is carried out\u2014a justice springing from the righteousness of the King.
\nVery similar to Isaiah are two prophecies found in Jeremiah. The first is Jeremiah 23:5\u20136. Again, there is a descendant of David who will sit on David\u2019s throne. Yet this descendant is called Jehovah our righteousness. The One sitting on David\u2019s throne is none other than the God-Man. And because it is the God-Man, His reign will be characterized by wisdom, justice and righteousness. It is in Him that the security of Israel will lie. The second passage is Jeremiah 33:14\u201326. The emphasis in this passage is clearly on the eternity of and the impossibility of breaking the Davidic Covenant. Beginning with the reaffirmation of God\u2019s intention to fulfill His covenant with David (v. 14), Jeremiah restates the basic points of his statements in 23:5\u20136 (v. 15\u201316). Under no circumstances will the House of David ever become extinct (vv. 17\u201318) for the Davidic Covenant is both unconditional and eternal (vv. 19\u201321). Ultimately, the seed of David will be greatly multiplied (v. 22). The re-establishment of the Davidic throne will be the antidote to the poisonous teaching that God no longer intends to fulfill His covenants with Israel (vv. 23\u201326). God is not through with Israel (vv. 23\u201324), but will fulfill every promise of the Davidic Covenant (vv. 25\u201326a) and the Abrahamic Covenant (v. 26b).
\nOne other passage in the Old Testament is Amos 9:11\u201312. When the kingdom is established, the ruins of the House of David will be repaired, and the Davidic throne will again exercise all the glory of the days gone by (v. 11). In addition to all the glory of the past, the authority of the re-established Davidic throne will extend to all the Gentile nations (v. 12).
\nIn the New Testament, the re-establishment of the Davidic throne is found in Luke 1:32\u201335. All four key aspects of the Davidic Covenant are mentioned here. The Son of Mary is to sit upon the eternal throne over an eternal kingdom, for He was born into the eternal dynasty. The eternalness of the dynasty, throne, and kingdom is assured because they all culminate in the Person who is Himself eternal: the Son of God.<\/p>\n
c. Other Characteristics of Israel\u2019s Final Restoration<\/p>\n
Besides the various features mentioned in the passages dealing with the covenants and their prophetic developments, other passages develop additional characteristics which may or may not necessarily be connected with any specific covenant. Some of these other characteristics which will be true at the time of Israel\u2019s final restoration will be dealt with in this section.<\/p>\n
(1) Reunited as a Nation<\/p>\n
One of the other major features of the final restoration is that Israel will be reunited as a nation, never to be divided into separate kingdoms again. This is mentioned in Jeremiah 3:18:<\/p>\n
In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I gave for an inheritance unto your fathers.<\/p>\n
The key passage for this characteristic is found in the vision of the valley of dry bones of Ezekiel 37:1\u201323. Ezekiel is first commanded to prophesy over the dry bones scattered all over the valley (vv. 1\u20136). When he does, the bones all come together with sinews and skin, and then the breath of life is given to them so they become alive again (vv. 7\u201310). As God interprets the vision of the valley of dry bones (vv. 11\u201317), these bones are said to represent the whole House of Israel which has become spiritually dead and dispersed (v. 11). Yet God will regather them, and they will again possess the land (vv. 12\u201313). At the time of the regathering and possession of the land, Israel will be regenerated by the Spirit of God so as to have a living and right relationship (v. 14). Then in Ezekiel 37:15\u201323, the prophet is commanded to take two sticks. On one stick he is to write Judah and on the other Joseph, and then put the two sticks together so they become one stick in his hand (vv. 15\u201317). The interpretation is that the two kingdoms will someday be reunited into one nation (vv. 18\u201320). When the regathering of Israel comes (v. 21), they will not be regathered into two nations, but only into one, for they will be under one king in one kingdom (v. 22). At that time they will be thoroughly cleansed of their sins which were the root cause of the original division (v. 23).<\/p>\n
(2) The Center of Gentile Attention<\/p>\n
A second major characteristic of Israel\u2019s final restoration is that they will become the center of Gentile attention. A number of passages speak of this, such as Isaiah 14:1\u20132. After Israel\u2019s regeneration and restoration (v. 1a), Gentiles will align themselves with Israel in order to worship the God of Israel (v. 1b). In fact, as Israel is being regathered, not only will this be accomplished with the help of angels, but the Gentiles will be conducting the Jews back into the land (v. 2a). Finally, the Gentiles will be possessed by Israel and will become the servants of Israel (v. 2b).
\nA similar statement is made in Isaiah 49:22\u201323. Again, the regathering of Israel is said to be with the aid of the Gentiles who will conduct the Jews back into the land (v. 22). At that time, the Gentiles of every social strata will become the servants of Israel (v. 23a) and Israel will never again be shamed by them (v. 23b).
\nAccording to Isaiah 60:1\u20133, the reason Israel will become the center of Gentile attention is due to the fact that the Shechinah Glory will abide over Israel.
\nAccording to Isaiah 61:4\u20139, when the regathering takes place, Israel will rebuild all the desolate cities of the land (v. 4). At that time, the Gentiles will become servants to Israel and will feed the flocks and plow the fields (v. 5). As for Israel, they will be the ministers of the Word to the Gentiles (v. 6a) and will receive the wealth of the Gentiles for their enjoyment (v. 6b). Israel will never again be shamed by the Gentiles, but rather they will receive a double portion of all blessings and possessions (v. 7). This will be the result of the New Covenant (v. 8). The Jews will be known among the Gentiles, and all the Gentiles will acknowledge that it is the Jews who have been especially chosen by God for special blessings (v. 9).
\nIsaiah\u2019s contemporary, Micah, also had something to say in this regard in Micah 7:14\u201317. Israel is to be regathered in order to possess the land (v. 14), and this regathering will be accomplished by miracles (v. 15). When the Gentiles see this, they will cease reproaching the Jews and will have a reverential fear of the Jews. They will then submit to the God of Israel (vv. 16\u201317).
\nThat Israel\u2019s final restoration will cause the Jews to become the center of Gentile attention was also revealed in Zephaniah 3:20. Finally, in Zechariah 8:23, the prophet states:<\/p>\n
Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, they shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.<\/p>\n
In the past, when ten Gentiles grabbed the clothes of a Jew, it was for other reasons than to say, Let us go with you, for we have heard God is with you. At the time of the final restoration, the Jews will no longer be reproached. Instead, Jews will be treated with reverential respect, for they will be known as the ministers of God.<\/p>\n
(3) Israel Over the Gentiles<\/p>\n
The fact that Israel was to become the head of the Gentiles was part of God\u2019s promises to Israel in the Book of Deuteronomy (15:6; 28:13). The leadership over the Gentiles was to be part of Israel\u2019s reward for obedience according to Deuteronomy 28:1. Such obedience and headship awaits Israel\u2019s national regeneration.
\nBesides the statements found in the Law of Moses, the prophets also described Israel\u2019s future headship over the Gentiles. One such passage is Isaiah 14:1\u20132. The Gentiles will not only conduct the Jews back to their Land of Israel, but they will be possessed by Israel. They will become servants to Israel. Similar passages are found in Isaiah 49:22\u201323 and 61:6\u20137.<\/p>\n
(4) Righteousness, Holiness, Peace, Security, Joy and Gladness<\/p>\n
Another feature of Israel\u2019s final restoration combines the various characteristics of righteousness, holiness, peace, security, joy and gladness. Righteousness and peace are the primary characteristics in Isaiah 32:16\u201320. Holiness, peace, security and joy are emphasized in Isaiah 35:5\u201310, things that will earmark the time of Israel\u2019s regathering. Joy and gladness are stressed in Isaiah 51:3. Joy and peace in nature and man are highlighted in Isaiah 55:12\u201313. In Isaiah 61:10\u201311, the emphasis is on the righteousness aspect.<\/p>\n
d. The Millennial Mountain of Jehovah\u2019s House<\/p>\n
At the time of the second coming of Christ the land will undergo some tremendous geographical and topographical changes. One of the key changes in the Land of Israel will be the rise of a very high mountain which will become the highest mountain of the world. On top of this mountain the Millennial Temple and the Millennial Jerusalem will stand.
\nThere are several passages that speak of this Millennial Mountain of Jehovah\u2019s House: Isaiah 2:2\u20134; 27:13; 56:6\u20138; 66:20; and Micah 4:1\u20132. These passages point out that this will be the highest mountain in the world and will become the center of both Jewish and Gentile attention and world worship.
\nThe prophet that received the most revelation regarding the Mountain of Jehovah\u2019s House was Ezekiel. He speaks of it in Ezekiel 17:22\u201324; 20:40\u201341; 40:1\u20134; 45:1\u20138; and 48:8\u201322. Putting all these passages together, what we discover is that at that time, the mountain will become the highest mountain in the world and will be subdivided into three units, each having a special segment that will play a role in the Messianic Kingdom. This holy mountain is referred to as the holy oblation, because the Temple is to stand somewhere on this mountain as is the city of Jerusalem. This very high mountain, the highest in the world, will itself have a fifty-mile square plateau on top. This square will be subdivided into three sections. The northern section will be twenty miles by fifty miles, having in its center the Millennial Temple, which will be one mile square in size. The rest of the area of the northern section will be reserved for a certain group of priests to live. The priests who are to occupy this area around the Temple are the descendants of Zadok, because that segment of the Tribe of Levi remained faithful while the rest went astray. Their responsibility is to be in charge of the sacrificial system. The central section will also measure twenty miles by fifty miles. This area will be reserved for the rest of the Tribe of Levi, those Levites who did not belong to the line of Zadok. Their responsibility will be to serve as caretakers of the Temple. The southern section is to measure ten miles by fifty miles, in the middle of which the Millennial Jerusalem is to be built. Jerusalem will be in the very center of this southern section and will measure ten miles by ten miles. The two remaining portions of the southern section, east and west of Jerusalem, will each measure ten miles by twenty miles and will be for the purpose of growing food for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jerusalem will not belong to any particular tribe, but it will be inhabited by members of all the twelve tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n
e. The Millennial Temple\u2014Ezekiel 40:5\u201343:27<\/p>\n
The Millennial Temple, the Fourth Jewish Temple, is described in Ezekiel 40:5\u201343:27. In this passage, Ezekiel gives a lot of detail as to what the Millennial Temple is going to be like and how it will be constructed. It will be the largest and most beautiful Temple Israel has had so far. It is impossible to make any sense of this passage if it is to be allegorized away. As much detail is given here as in the construction of the Tabernacle and the construction of the First Temple. Certainly the historical books will become meaningless if those measurements were not meant to be taken literally. The same thing has to be said about this prophetic passage. To allegorize the details is to render the whole passage meaningless.<\/p>\n
f. The Millennial System of Priesthood and Sacrifice\u2014Ezekiel 44:1\u201346:24<\/p>\n
These three chapters of Ezekiel are concerned with the various laws regulating the millennial system of priesthood and sacrifice. To summarize, there will be a sacrificial system instituted in the Millennium that will have some features similar to the Mosaic system, along with some new laws. For that very reason, the sacrificial system of the Millennium must not be viewed as a reinstitution of the Mosaic system, because it is not. It will be a new system that will contain some things old and some things new and will be instituted for an entirely different purpose.
\nA common argument against taking these verses literally is the question as to why such a system would be necessary since the Messiah has already died. If the death of Christ was the final sacrifice for sin, how could these animal sacrifices provide an expiation for sin? Therefore, some say, these chapters of Ezekiel must not be taken literally. If not, Ezekiel gives a lot of detail that would suddenly become meaningless. Furthermore, if all that detail is intended to be symbolic, the symbols are never explained and the non-literalist is forced to be subjective in expounding them and must resort to guess work. The literal approach is the safest method to gain understanding of these passages.
\nWhat will be the purpose of these sacrifices in light of Christ\u2019s death? To begin with, it should be remembered that the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law did not remove sins either (Heb. 10:4), but only covered them (the meaning of \u201catonement\u201d in Hebrew). Its purpose was to serve as a physical and visual picture of what the Messiah would do (Isa. 53:10\u201312). The Church has been commanded to keep the Lord\u2019s Supper as a physical and visual picture of what Christ did on the cross. God intends to provide for Israel in the kingdom a physical and visual picture of what the Messiah accomplished on the cross. For Israel, however, it will be a sacrificial system instead of communion with bread and wine. The purpose of the sacrificial system in the kingdom will be the same as the purpose of communion of the Church: in remembrance of me.
\nDr. John C. Whitcomb of Grace Theological Seminary provides an additional and significant dispensational perspective on the millennial sacrifices. The subscript of the article summarizes his position:<\/p>\n
The future function of the millennial temple (Ezekiel 40\u201348) has long been problematic for dispensationalists in view of the finished work of Christ. Light is shed on this problem by noting the original theocratic purpose of OT sacrifices. This purpose was functionally distinct from that of the redemptive work of Christ. Millennial sacrifices will not simply memorialize Christ\u2019s redemption but will primarily function in restoring theocratic harmony. The differences between the Old Covenant stipulations and those of Ezekiel 40\u201348 can be accounted for in terms of this solution.<\/p>\n
Whitcomb emphasizes that there was a functional difference between the purpose of the animal sacrifices and the purpose of Christ\u2019s sacrifice. To the question, \u201cWhat was the true function of animal sacrifices in the Old Covenant?\u201d Whitcomb responds that \u201canimal sacrifices could never remove spiritual guilt from the offerer,\u201d citing Hebrews 10:4 and 11 as evidence. This, of course, is something that has general agreement among all theologians of all schools. But Whitcomb also points out that \u201cit is equally erroneous to say that the sacrifices were mere teaching symbols given by God to Israel to prepare them for Messiah and his infinite atonement.\u201d While this was certainly a purpose of animal sacrifices, \u201cit could not have been their exclusive purpose from the perspective of Old Covenant Israelites.\u201d Citing a number of clear statements from the Law of Moses, Whitcomb shows what the animal sacrifices did with regard to forgiveness and atonement. The real issue is not whether forgiveness and atonement took place, but rather the \u201cprecise nature\u201d of this forgiveness and atonement. Whitcomb states that whatever happened was \u201ctemporal, finite, external, and legal\u2014not eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological.\u201d His point is that this forgiveness and atonement was not a spiritual one for, \u201cNo one was ever spiritually regenerated by works, not even by fulfilling legally prescribed sacrifices, offerings and other Mosaic requirements.\u201d The Old Testament believer received his spiritual salvation because of \u201ca heart response to whatever special revelation of God was available at that time in history,\u201d but this saving faith did not necessarily include a knowledge of a crucified Messiah since such a view \u201cdoes not do justice to the progress of revelation.\u201d While the death of the Messiah \u201chas always been and always will be the final basis of spiritual salvation,\u201d this is not the same as saying that it was the \u201cknowledge-content\u201d of saving faith. It was faith and not the works of animal sacrifices that saved. What the animal sacrifices of the Law of Moses did achieve was \u201cnational\/theocratic forgiveness\u201d for \u201cnational\/ theocratic transgressions.\u201d They provided for external cleansing and outward efficacy. Under the Mosaic Law, the choice was not \u201ceither faith or sacrifices; rather, it was to be both faith and sacrifices.\u201d The former resulted in spiritual salvation and the later for the cleanness of the flesh in accordance with Hebrews 9:13.
\nApplying these truths to the millennial sacrifices, Whitcomb affirms that \u201cfuture sacrifices will have nothing to do with eternal salvation which only comes through true faith in God.\u201d However, these future animal sacrifices will also be efficacious, but \u201conly in terms of the strict provision for ceremonial (and thus temporal) forgiveness within the theocracy of Israel.\u201d Whitcomb\u2019s conclusion on this point is:<\/p>\n
Thus, animal sacrifices during the coming Kingdom age will not be primarily memorial (like the eucharist in church communion services), any more than sacrifices in the age of the Old Covenant were primarily prospective or prophetic in the understanding of the offerer.<\/p>\n
The distinction between ceremonial and spiritual atonement is by no means a minor one, for it is at the heart of the basic difference between the theocracy of Israel and the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ. It also provides a more consistent hermeneutical approach for dispensational premillennialism.<\/p>\n
Whitcomb also rejects the notion that the millennial sacrifice is a reinstitution of the Mosaic and notes that the differences between the two systems means that the millennial sacrificial system is a distinct system arising out of the New Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant.<\/p>\n
g. The Millennial River\u2014Ezekiel 47:1\u201312<\/p>\n
Altogether, there are three passages that speak about the Millennial River. One of these is this Ezekiel passage which depicts the river as beginning in the Temple area and eventually making its way south to the Dead Sea. The entire Ezekiel passage is summarized in Joel 3:18. According to Joel, the Millennial River will originate in the Temple area.
\nThe point of origin is further described in Ezekiel 47:1\u20132. From the front part of the Temple, by the threshold of the door and the right side of the altar which will stand in front of the Temple, the Millennial River will gush out, first heading east until it passes the eastern gate and then heading south toward the Dead Sea.
\nIt will not flow directly from the Temple to the Dead Sea, but will first flow to Jerusalem as depicted in Zechariah 14:8. While the river will begin in the Temple, it is clear from this passage that it will flow southward to the City of Jerusalem where it will be divided in two. The western branch will flow down the mountain and empty into the Mediterranean Sea. The eastern branch will flow into the Dead Sea. The branching out of these waters towards the areas designated for growing food on both sides of Jerusalem will provide the necessary water for the growth of the crops. Since the eastern branch empties into the Dead Sea, the character of the Dead Sea will change. It will begin swarming with life as prophesied in Ezekiel 47:8\u201310.<\/p>\n
h. The Millennial Israel\u2014Ezekiel 47:13\u201348:29<\/p>\n
For the first time in Israel\u2019s history, the Jews will possess and settle in all of the Promised Land, and it will again be subdivided into the twelve tribal divisions. However, these tribal divisions will be different from those described in the Book of Joshua. Ezekiel states that the division of all of the Promised Land will be the final fulfillment of God\u2019s covenant promises (47:13\u201314).
\nThe prophet then deals with the boundaries of the land in the Millennium (47:15\u201320). The northern boundary will extend from the Mediterranean Sea, incorporating much of modern day Lebanon and parts of modern Syria, over to the Euphrates River (vv. 15\u201317). The eastern border will move south from the Euphrates River, incorporating the Golan Heights and portions of Syria almost up to Damascus, and continue south to the Jordan River where it exits from the Sea of Galilee. The border will then run along the river all the way down to the southern end of the Dead Sea (v. 18). The southern border will move from the southern end of the Dead Seas, incorporating the Negev and parts of Sinai all the way along the Brook of Egypt, the modern Wadi-el-Arish, to the point where it reaches the Mediterranean Sea (v. 19). The Mediterranean Sea will serve as the western border (v. 20).
\nEzekiel 48:1\u20137 describes the northern division of the land as subdivided for seven of the twelve tribes. The tribes will be settled running from north to south in the following order: Dan (v. 1), Asher (v. 2), Naphtali (v. 3), Manasseh (v. 4), Ephraim (v. 5), Reuben (v. 6) and Judah (v. 7).
\nEzekiel 48:8\u201322 describes the holy oblation discussed earlier. But now Ezekiel notes the exact location of this mountain of Jehovah\u2019s house. The mountain of the holy oblation will be situated south of Judah\u2019s border and north of Benjamin\u2019s border and will serve as the dividing line between the northern seven tribes and the southern five tribes.
\nEzekiel 48:23\u201329 describes the division of the land for the remaining five tribes. Again, running from north to south, the tribes will be settled in the following order: Benjamin (v. 23), Simeon (v. 24), Issachar (v. 25), Zebulun (v. 26) and Gad (v. 27) running along the southern border (vv. 28\u201329).<\/p>\n
i. The Millennial Jerusalem\u2014Ezekiel 48:30\u201335<\/p>\n
Ezekiel describes the Millennial Jerusalem adding details not found elsewhere in the prophets. All four sides of the city are described, along with the gates and their names. The city gates will be named after the twelve sons of Jacob. The north side (vv. 30\u201331) will measure ten miles (v. 30), and the three gates will be named after Reuben, Judah, and Levi (v. 31). The eastern side (v. 32) will measure ten miles (v. 32a), and its gates will be named after Joseph, Benjamin, and Dan (v. 32b). The southern side (v. 33) will measure ten miles (v. 33a) with its three gates named after Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun (v. 33b). Finally, the western side (v. 34) will also measure ten miles (v. 34a) with its gates named after Gad, Asher, and Naphtali (v. 34b). The total measurement of the city will be ten miles square (v. 35a), and Jerusalem\u2019s name will be changed to Jehovah Shammah, which means \u201cJehovah is there\u201d (v. 35b). Since the Messiah will personally reign from this particular city, the city will not only fulfill the meaning of its name of Jerusalem (the city of peace) but also Jehovah Shammah (Jehovah is there). For this same reason the city will also be called Jehovah Our Righteousness, according to Jeremiah 33:16.
\nOther passages give further descriptions of this Millennial Jerusalem: Psalm 48:1\u201310 describes Jerusalem as the city of the Great King; Psalm 87:1\u20137 states that only in the kingdom will Jerusalem be known as the city of God in the real sense of the term and peace will characterize the city in every aspect; in Psalm 122:1\u20139 the Davidic throne will be established in that city and Jesus the Messiah will reign from the city of Jerusalem; according to Psalm 147:1\u201320, Jerusalem will be built at the time of Israel\u2019s regathering and will be characterized by strength and peace and the place where millennial law will emanate from.
\nA number of the prophets of Israel also revealed other features and characteristics of the Millennial Jerusalem. Among the major prophets is Isaiah who in 1:26\u201327 described the Millennial Jerusalem as being characterized by holiness, justice, and righteousness. Later, in Isaiah 4:3\u20136, holiness is what is going to characterize the establishment of Jerusalem (v. 3), for all of Jerusalem\u2019s previous sins will be purged by God\u2019s justice and refining fire (v. 4). Hence, over the entire Mount Zion will be the visible form of the Shechinah Glory (vv. 5\u20136). In Isaiah 14:32, Jerusalem will serve as the place of security for the afflicted people. Later, Isaiah 33:20\u201324 describes the Millennial Jerusalem. Quietness and security will characterize Jerusalem in that day (v. 20), for Jehovah in the person of the Messiah will dwell in this city (v. 21a). It will be a city of many streams and waters, but without any ships of war ever sailing in them (v. 21b). The Messiah in the midst of the city will serve as the Judge, Lawgiver, King and Saviour (v. 22) and so Israel\u2019s sins will be totally forgiven (v. 23\u201324). The holiness and freedom of Jerusalem is emphasized in Isaiah 52:1\u20132. Jerusalem in that day will become the holy city and nothing unholy will ever enter into it (v. 1). It will be further characterized by freedom, for the Times of the Gentiles will be no more and never again will Jerusalem be subject to bondage (v. 2). In Isaiah 52:7\u201310, there is good news that is to be declared to Jerusalem. The good news for Jerusalem is that Messiah will reign in Zion (v. 7), and the Jews will be regathered to Jerusalem (v. 8). Jerusalem will be built all over again, for God will redeem the city (v. 9) and salvation will characterize it (v. 10). Jerusalem is to become the center of worldwide Gentile attention according to Isaiah 60:10\u201314. The Gentiles, who will be the servants of Israel, will also be used in building up the Millennial Jerusalem (v. 10). The twelve gates named after the twelve sons of Jacob will be continually open never to be closed throughout the kingdom (v. 11a). The Gentile nations and kings will bring their tribute through these gates (v. 11b), for failure to do so will bring swift judgment (v. 12). The Gentile nations who in the past afflicted the City of Jerusalem will now bow in submission to its authority (vv. 13\u201314). A rather detailed description is in Isaiah 62:1\u201312. The Millennial Jerusalem will be characterized by brightness and righteousness (v. 1). Her righteousness will be recognized by all the nations of the earth (v. 2a). At that time, Jerusalem will be given a new name (v. 2b), the one mentioned in Ezekiel 48:35: Jehovah Shammah. Jerusalem will be further characterized by beauty (v. 3) never again to be forsaken or desolated by God (v. 4a), for it itself will be God\u2019s joy and delight (vv. 4b\u20135). To make sure that these promises will someday be fulfilled, angelic messengers have been placed upon the walls of Jerusalem whose entire ministry consists of reminding God of His promises to make Jerusalem the joy and praise of the whole earth (vv. 6\u20137). The inhabitants of Millennial Jerusalem are promised that they will enjoy the fruits of their labors, for the results of their labor will never again be taken away by their enemies (vv. 8\u20139). The declaration is made that the redemption and salvation of Jerusalem is assured, because God is One who keeps His promises (vv. 10\u201312). Joy and rejoicing will be prominent characteristics of the Millennial Jerusalem in Isaiah 65:18\u201319. Peace and comfort, along with joy, are features of the city in Isaiah 66:10\u201314.
\nThough Isaiah is the primary major prophet describing the Millennial Jerusalem, other major prophets spoke of it as well. In Jeremiah 3:17, the re-established Davidic throne will be situated in Jerusalem, making it the center of Gentile attention. It will also be a center of Jewish attraction in Jeremiah 31:6. The increased size of Jerusalem, its holiness and its indestructibility are the points of Jeremiah 31:38\u201340. The peace and joy that will return to Jerusalem is described in Jeremiah 33:9\u201311. The joy, peace and glory of Jerusalem will attract the Gentile nations from afar (v. 9). All the former desolations of Jerusalem will be forever forgotten (v. 10), for the streets of Jerusalem will bustle with the noise of joy and gladness and with the happy voices of brides and bridegrooms (v. 11).
\nScattered among the minor prophets are more references describing the Millennial Jerusalem. Jerusalem is to be characterized by holiness and security only because God Himself will dwell in her according to Joel 3:17. it is from Jerusalem that God will reign over the regathered Israel in Micah 4:6\u20138. According to Zephaniah 3:14\u201317, Jerusalem is to shout for joy and gladness (v. 14), for the city will be redeemed (v. 15a). God Himself will dwell in the city (vv. 15b\u201317) and reign over the inhabitants of the city. Of all the minor prophets, Zechariah had the most to say concerning the Millennial Jerusalem. In the very first chapter of his book, in Zechariah 1:14\u201317, the prophet reported a promise God made that He has every intention of choosing Jerusalem in spite of desolations afflicted on her by the Gentiles. Then, in Zechariah 2:1\u20135, he elaborates on the promise made in Zechariah 1:14\u201317 in which God promised that He will choose Jerusalem and rebuild her. Now, in Zechariah 2:1\u20135, the promise is developed. Jerusalem will indeed be rebuilt to a size far greater than ever before (vv. 1\u20132). The rebuilding is portrayed as a city without walls (vv. 3\u20134). It does not state that there will be no walls as if to contradict other passages studied in this chapter. It simply says: as villages without walls. The purpose of walled cities was for protection and security. However, the Millennial Jerusalem will not need a wall for the purpose of protection or security since the Messiah Himself will dwell in her midst. The purpose of Jerusalem\u2019s wall will not be for protection, but for beauty. The reason the wall will not be needed for security is because on one hand God will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem, while on the other hand the Shechinah Glory in a form of fire will surround the city (v. 5). The point is restated in Zechariah 2:10\u201312. God, in the person of the Messiah, will indeed dwell in Jerusalem (v. 10). For this reason, Jerusalem will be the center of worldwide Gentile attention (v. 11). From His throne in Jerusalem, the Messiah will reign over all Israel and the Holy Land (v. 12). Another graphic description of the Millennial Jerusalem is in Zechariah 8:1\u20138. God\u2019s special jealousy for Jerusalem (vv. 1\u20132) will cause Him to return to Jerusalem to dwell in her midst (v. 3a). At that time, Jerusalem will become the city of truth upon the mountain of Jehovah\u2019s house (v. 3b). The city will be inhabited by the very young and the very old (vv. 4\u20135). The very young will be those who will be born in the kingdom, while the very old will indeed be very old, for many will be several hundred years of age in the closing centuries of the Millennium. The Millennial Jerusalem will be a marvelous work that only God can do (v. 6). Once the Millennial Jerusalem is established, it will be inhabited by the Jews regathered from all over the world (vv. 7\u20138). Jerusalem becoming the center of worldwide Gentile attention is the point of Zechariah 8:20\u201322. The unique situation of Jerusalem in the kingdom is described in Zechariah 14:9\u201311. The Messiah will be King in the city (v. 9), and the geography of the land will be greatly altered so that Jerusalem can be enlarged and exalted on the mountain of Jehovah\u2019s house (v. 10). Only then will Jerusalem become truly the city of peace and live in total security (v. 11). Finally, the holiness that will characterize Jerusalem will extend to the very bells upon the horses and to the pots and pans in the kitchens, according to Zechariah 14:20\u201321.<\/p>\n
j. The Remnant of Israel<\/p>\n
Since all Israel throughout the Messianic Kingdom will remain a saved nation, all Israel will remain the Remnant of Israel throughout that period. Everything said in the preceding section about Israel and the kingdom will be true of the Remnant of Israel. However, certain verses do emphasize the remnant motif in the Messianic Kingdom and so, for the sake of completeness, these will be brought out in this section.
\nConcerning the regathering of Israel, Isaiah 11:11 and 16 picture it as the gathering of the remnant. The same is true in Zechariah 8:6\u20137. Micah 4:7 emphasizes the salvation of the remnant. This means that the sins of the remnant will be forgiven according to Micah 7:18\u201320. This will also mean that the remnant will spread the Word of God among the Gentile nations according to Micah 5:7\u20138. The remnant will also be in possession of the land according to Zephaniah 2:7 and 9. The same point is made by Zechariah 8:12. They will be sinless in the land and live in security according to Zephaniah 3:13.<\/p>\n
5. Israel and the Eternal Order<\/p>\n
Even in the Eternal State, the Jewish distinctive will be somewhat maintained though there is no clear indication if that will mean a functional difference.
\nHebrews 12:22\u201324, which describes the various residents of the Heavenly Jerusalem, distinguishes the general assembly and church of the firstborn (Church saints) from the spirits of just men made perfect (Old Testament saints). They were just in their day because they were justified by faith (i.e., Gen. 15:6), but they were made perfect at the death of the Messiah.
\nThe twelve gates of the eternal New Jerusalem will be named after the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev. 21:12\u201313), meaning that for all eternity these Jewish names will be remembered. Furthermore, through these gates the righteous of the Gentiles will bring their glory into it (Rev. 21:25\u201326). The Gentiles were also mentioned in verse 24. The mention of \u201cGentiles\u201d shows that the Jewish and Gentile distinction will be maintained for all eternity.<\/p>\n
D. Other Relevant Topics<\/p>\n
There are issues related to Israelology that cannot be conveniently categorized as past, present, or future either because they are timeless issues or because they fit in all three time zones. These topics will be covered under this final segment.<\/p>\n
1. The Symbolic Illustrations of Israel<\/p>\n
The Bible gives a number of symbolic illustrations of the Church and her relationship to the Messiah, such as bridegroom and bride, head and body, shepherd and sheep, vine and branches, and several others. These are usually found in works on Ecclesiology. The Bible also gives symbolic illustrations of Israel which rightly must be studied in a work on Israelology. The following are those which relate Israel to God.<\/p>\n
a. The Son of God<\/p>\n
Israel is the national son of God, according to Exodus 4:22\u201323. The message Moses was to give Pharaoh was that Israel is God\u2019s son, God\u2019s first-born. It was because of that relationship that the tenth plague hit Egypt: the slaying of the Egyptian first-born. It was because of that sonship relationship that the Exodus experience occurred and God called His son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1). Since Israel is already the son of God in Exodus four, this sonship cannot be based on the Mosaic Covenant, which was not yet made and, therefore, must be based on the Abrahamic Covenant. For that reason, Israel had the right to address God as \u201cFather\u201d (Isa. 63:16; 64:8), but often proved to be a rebellious son (Isa. 1:3\u20134; Jer. 3:22).<\/p>\n
b. God\u2019s Treasure<\/p>\n
In Exodus 19:5, as Israel arrived at Mount Sinai, God decreed Israel to be His own peculiar treasure mined from among all peoples. This point is repeated in Deuteronomy 14:2. In Psalm 135:4, the psalmist declared that God had chosen Israel for Himself and made Israel His own treasure. Israel became God\u2019s treasure as a result of her national election which, in turn, caused God to rescue His treasure from Egypt. In Matthew 13:44, the Mystery Kingdom is compared to a treasure hidden in the field; the point of this parable is that during the period of the Mystery Kingdom, God will gain a remnant from Israel.<\/p>\n
c. The Kingdom of Priests<\/p>\n
Part of Israel\u2019s calling was to be a kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:6). The function of a priest is to represent man to God. Israel had one priestly tribe, the Tribe of Levi, set apart from the other tribes to represent the nation to God. The nation as a whole was to be a holy nation set apart from other nations in order to be a priestly nation to represent other nations to God. As a nation, Israel failed in this calling, but the Remnant of Israel did not (1 Pet. 2:5, 9).<\/p>\n
d. The Vineyard of Jehovah<\/p>\n
The vine, more than the fig tree, is the common symbol of Israel. Isaiah used this motif more than others. It is first found in Isaiah 3:14\u201315 where he accused the leadership of Israel of spoiling God\u2019s vineyard, Israel. This they did by oppressing the people.
\nIsaiah elaborated on this theme in 5:1\u20137. It begins with a song (vv. 1\u20132). The Song of the Vineyard pictures the vineyard as planted on excellent soil and protruding in such a way that it receives sunlight all day long. The farmer did all that he could to make it produce: he plowed the soil, removed the stones, planted the choicest vines available, and built a watchtower in the middle of the field to keep a careful eye on it. Before the harvest, he hewed out a winepress expecting to need it. However, instead of producing edible grapes, it produced wild sour grapes. This is the way the song ends. This leads to the judgment of the vineyard (vv. 3\u20136). Isaiah calls upon the nation of Israel to pass judgment between the vineyard and the keeper (v. 3). The keeper raises a rhetorical question (v. 4): could anything more be done than what was done in order to get the vineyard to produce good grapes? The question demands a negative answer: no, nothing more could possibly be done. Therefore, the vineyard is guilty. In judgment, the keeper will break down and remove the protective wall so that it will be trampled upon by man and animal (v. 5). Furthermore, it will no longer be pruned, but will suffer drought until it becomes a desolate waste (v. 6). The passage concludes with the application (v. 7). The nation of Israel is that vineyard. The good grapes which Israel was to produce were justice and righteousness. Instead, they produced the wild grapes of oppression. Now Israel will suffer a destruction.
\nLater, in Isaiah 27:2\u20136, the prophet has a brighter future for this vineyard. This too is a song (v. 2). In the future, God will replant the devastated vineyard and will water it and watch it day and night (v. 3). God will declare war on the thorns and briers that may try to destroy the vineyard unless they make peace with Him (vv. 4\u20135). As a result of the replanting and God\u2019s watchful care, Israel will blossom and bud and produce fruit for the entire world (v. 6). In the future kingdom, Israel will bring justice and righteousness among the nations.
\nJeremiah 2:21 pictures Israel as a noble vine and a right seed that had turned into the degenerate branches of a foreign vine. In this way Jeremiah pictures Israel slipping into idolatry. Also, like Isaiah, Jeremiah accuses the leadership of Israel of desolating the vineyard in Jeremiah 12:10\u201311. It is the many shepherds who have destroyed God\u2019s vineyard and turned it into a desolate wilderness.
\nHosea 10:1\u20133 picks up the vine theme picturing Israel as a luxuriant vine extremely fruitful, but only in mass producing idolatry. Like Jeremiah, Hosea uses the vineyard motif to accuse Israel of gross idolatry.
\nThe vine motif comes in again in the context of Israel\u2019s national pleading for the Messiah in Psalm 80:8\u201316. At the Exodus (v. 8), God brought a vine out of Egypt and planted it in the land of Israel (vv. 9\u201310), but its influence extended far beyond the borders of the land (v. 11). But now the vine has suffered destruction (vv. 12\u201313) because God had removed the protective wall (v. 12) and the nations have trampled it (v. 13). Israel now pleads for deliverance from God (v. 14) because the vineyard that God planted (v. 15) has been destroyed by fire (v. 16).
\nJesus, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, also pictured Israel as a vineyard misused by her leaders in Matthew 21:33\u201346 with parallel accounts in Mark 11:1\u201312 and Luke 20:9\u201319. The point of the parable is that Israel\u2019s leaders have killed the prophets and now they will kill the Son. The householder is God the Father; the vineyard is Israel; the husbandmen or keepers are the Jewish leaders; the servants are the prophets; and, the Son is the Messiah. As in Isaiah\u2019s Song of the Vineyard, God planted a vineyard, built a protective hedge and a watchtower and also dug a winepress expecting to use it. He leased the land to the keepers (Jewish leaders) expecting to receive fruit. When it failed to come, he sent three sets of servants: the pre-exilic prophets, the post-exilic prophets, and then John the Baptist and his disciples. However, all were rejected. He sent His Son, but the Jewish leaders conspired against Him and killed Him. God\u2019s response was to send a judgment of death against the leaders which came in A.D. 70. The application is made in Matthew 21:43\u201344:<\/p>\n
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever if shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the leadership of Israel recognized that the parable applied to them in 21:45:<\/p>\n
And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.<\/p>\n
The point is that the offer of the Messianic Kingdom was rescinded from that generation of Israel, especially the leaders of that day, and it will be offered to another Jewish generation with a different body of leadership. That future leadership will accept it and then the vineyard will become what it was prophesied to become in Isaiah 27:2\u20136.<\/p>\n
e. The Clay and the Potter<\/p>\n
This relationship emphasizes that God as the potter has absolute authority over Israel the clay, either to shape it or, if need be, to destroy it. Therefore, according to Isaiah, it is foolish for Israel to deny that God made Israel or that the Maker of Israel lacks understanding (Isa. 29:16). It is also foolish for Israel to object to God\u2019s plan for Israel for it is like clay striving against its maker (Isa. 45:9). Though Israel the clay did object in the past, in the future they will submit, recognizing that God knows best (Isa. 64:8).
\nJeremiah used this motif more extensively. One example is Jeremiah 18:1\u201312. The passage begins with a symbolic action (vv. 1\u20134). God commanded the prophet to go to the house of the potter and to observe how he worked (vv. 1\u20133). Jeremiah noted that as the potter was forming the clay, it became marred in the process. The potter then simply remolded the clay, since it was still soft, to make another thing as seemed good to the potter to make it (v. 4). Then came the interpretation (vv. 5\u20136). The potter represents God and the clay represents Israel. Just as the potter has full control over the clay, so God has full control over Israel. The application (vv. 7\u201312) is that God is able to fully carry out His threats against Israel.
\nThis theme is picked up again in Jeremiah 19:1\u201315. It begins with another symbolic action (vv. 1\u201310). This time the prophet is commanded to take a potter\u2019s earthen vessel (v. 1a) and then, with elders of the people and the priests (v. 1b), to go down to the Valley of Hinnom (v. 2). There, before the leadership of Israel, Jeremiah is to denounce the idolatry and human sacrifice and announce the coming divine judgment for it (vv. 3\u20139). He is then to conclude his denunciation by breaking the earthen vessel (v. 10). This is followed by the application (vv. 11\u201315). Just as Jeremiah broke the earthen vessel and it shattered and scattered, so will God break Israel and Jerusalem until they are shattered and scattered.
\nPaul\u2019s discussion of the potter and the clay in Romans 9:19\u201324 is in the context of Israel\u2019s national election and in keeping with the Old Testament motif. This passage was discussed under Israel Present.<\/p>\n
f. The Servant of Jehovah<\/p>\n
Isaiah uses the term servant in three different ways. One use of it is of the Messiah (42:1\u20134; 49:1\u201313; 52:13\u201353:12). The other two usages relate to Israel: at times he uses it of Israel the whole and at other times only of the Remnant of Israel. Examples of the latter use were discussed earlier in this chapter under Israel Future when discussing the remnant in the Tribulation (Isa. 41:8\u201320; 65:8\u201316).
\nAs far as the nation as a whole, one example is Isaiah 42:18\u201343:13 which speaks of the coming deliverance from Babylon. The passage begins by declaring Israel\u2019s spiritual blindness (vv. 18\u201322). Although Israel is the servant of Jehovah, yet she is blind (vv. 18\u201320) and for that reason Israel has become a plundered people (vv. 21\u201322). However, greater judgment is yet to come (vv. 23\u201325) for God will turn His servant over to the robbers because of all their sins. The passage then makes a promise of redemption (vv. 1\u20134). God is Israel\u2019s Creator and so fully intends to redeem Israel (v. 1). No matter what water or fire the nation will experience, it will survive (v. 2). God is Israel\u2019s Saviour (v. 3) and Israel is precious and honorable in the sight of God (v. 4). Isaiah then describes the final regathering (vv. 5\u20137) and it will be from the four corners of the earth. With all of this accomplished, Israel will be called upon to witness on God\u2019s behalf (vv. 8\u201313). Israel is called to testify (v. 8) in spite of her blindness and the Gentiles are called upon to listen (v. 9). At that time Israel the chosen servant will understand who is God indeed (v. 10) and will testify to that truth before the Gentiles (vv. 11\u201313).
\nThe servant motif is picked up again in Isaiah 44:1\u20135. Israel is again declared to be a chosen servant (v. 1), a servant formed by God (v. 2). For that reason the servant nation is destined for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit (v. 3), which will lead to Israel\u2019s national salvation (v. 4\u20135).
\nIt is because Israel is the servant of Jehovah that she is promised a national salvation in Isaiah 44:21\u201323. Israel\u2019s servant status is still true although at this time she does not know the Lord (Isa. 45:4). For the same reason, Israel will be redeemed from Babylon (Isa. 48:20).<\/p>\n
g. The Flock of God<\/p>\n
Like the Church, Israel has a shepherd and sheep relationship with God. The singular shepherd is God, the plurality of shepherds are the Jewish leaders and the sheep or flock is Israel (Ps. 28:9; 78:52; 80:1).
\nOne example of this relationship is Jeremiah 23:1\u20134. God accuses the Jewish leaders (shepherds) of causing the scattering of Israel (scatter the sheep of my pasture) and lays the blame squarely on them (v. 1). God announces His judgment (v. 2): what they have done to the flock, He will do to them. Meanwhile, God intends to regather the remnant of my flock and return them to the land (v. 3). At that time God will give to Israel righteous shepherds who will feed the flock with knowledge and understanding and never be guilty of leading Israel astray (v. 4). The same point was made earlier in Jeremiah 3:15. In that day, God Himself will be their Chief Shepherd to care for them even if they are ruled by human shepherds (Isa. 40:11; Jer. 31:10).
\nAn extensive treatment of this motif is found in Ezekiel 34:1\u201331. It is a prophecy against the shepherds of Israel, the leadership of Israel guilty of leading the flock astray and failing to feed the flock, but freely feeding off the flock and finally scattering the flock (vv. 1\u20135). God will now judge the shepherds and they will be removed from leadership (vv. 6\u201310). As for the sheep, He will gather them from everywhere to bring theirs back to the land and there they will be fed, watered, and healed (vv. 11\u201316). In preparation for the final gathering of the flock, God will judge the individual sheep and a segment of the flock will be destroyed because of their sins (vv. 17\u201322). The remnant that is finally restored will have one human shepherd over them, the resurrected King David (vv. 23\u201324; cf. Ezek. 37:24). At that time the flock will enter into the New Covenant and will be able to fully enjoy the fruits of the land (vv. 25\u201329) for Israel is the flock of God (vv. 30\u201331).
\nIn Zechariah 11:4\u201314, the motif is viewed in a messianic role as Zechariah plays the part of the good shepherd. The account begins with a commission to Zechariah (vv. 4\u20136) to feed the flock of slaughter, a flock already destined to be killed (v. 4). The possessors of the flock slew the flock feeling no guilt and the shepherds of the flock feel no pity for the flock they are supposed to protect (v. 5). As if that was not bad enough, God will also remove His pity (v. 6) from the land and the inhabitants will be delivered into the hand of his king; the king will smite the land and this time God will not intervene. It is this verse that makes it clear that the flock represents the inhabitants of the land, or the people of Israel, while the careless shepherds are Israel\u2019s leaders. In its New Testament fulfillment, the possessors are the Romans and the king was the Roman emperor. In A.D. 70, the Romans did devastate the land and, in the following verses, Zechariah will explain why this was allowed to happen. Zechariah carried out his commission (vv. 7\u201311) and fed the flock of slaughter with a special emphasis on the poor of the flock (v. 7a). The flock of slaughter represents all Israel while the poor of the flock represents the Remnant of Israel. The Messiah, when He came, did minister to the nation as a whole with a special emphasis on the believing remnant. To carry out his commission, Zechariah used two staves (v. 7b). One he named Beauty, which means \u201cgraciousness,\u201d and the other he named Bands, which means \u201cbinders\u201d or \u201cunion.\u201d The former was to protect the flock while the latter was to keep the flock together. Thus Zechariah fulfilled his mission: I fed the flock. So did the Messiah (Matt. 9:35\u201336). In the course of feeding the flock, Zechariah had to cut off the three shepherds, three categories of Jewish leaders, because he was weary of them and they loathed Zechariah (v. 8). In the New Testament context, these would be the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees. At some point there came a sudden cessation of the feeding (v. 9) and a rupture took place between the good shepherd and the flock and the flock was left to the natural course of events without interference from the shepherd. In its New Testament fulfillment, this event took place in Matthew 12:22\u201345 when the leadership of Israel rejected the Messiahship of Jesus. This rupture led to the breaking of Beauty (v. 10). The protection of the flock was now removed and the covenant God had made with the Gentile nations, which protected Israel, was broken; these nations would now be permitted to devastate and scatter the flock. The New Testament counterpart is Matthew 24:1\u20132, Luke 19:41\u201344 and 21:24. The action and meaning of the breaking of Beauty was understood only by the poor of the flock (v. 11). They gave heed to what the good shepherd had to say for they knew that it was the word of Jehovah. The Jewish believers in Jesus came to understand that the land and the city were destined for destruction; they abandoned the city in keeping with the Messiah\u2019s command (Luke 21:20\u201324) and fled to Pella. The symbolic action ends with the price of the good shepherd (vv. 12\u201314). Zechariah now stood before the leadership of Israel to see what his payment would be (v. 12a). Since no specific salary was agreed to in advance, they were to pay Zechariah whatever they thought his work was worth. They valued his labors to be worth thirty pieces of silver (v. 12b). This was a price of contempt. According to Exodus 21:32, if an ox gored to death a neighbor\u2019s slave, the owner of the ox was to pay the owner of the slave thirty pieces of silver. That was considered the valued price of a dead slave. Later, if one wished to show contempt for another, he would pay him thirty pieces of silver, conveying that his worth was that of a dead slave. That was the message now conveyed to Zechariah. The New Testament fulfillment came when the leaders of Israel paid that same amount to Judas to betray Jesus who was also valued at the price of a dead slave; in this way they showed that they indeed loathed Him (Matt. 26:14\u201316). At this point another commission comes to Zechariah from God (v. 13a). He is to take the silver and dump it in the Temple Compound area. Then God states that it was God Himself who is to be sold out for thirty pieces of silver. This was the goodly price that I was prized at by them. When the Messiah was sold out for thirty pieces of silver, this prophecy was fulfilled (Matt. 26:14\u201316). Zechariah also fulfilled this second commission (v. 13b) and did cast the money into the Temple Compound. The New Testament fulfillment came when Judas did the same with his thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 27:3\u201310). This led to the breaking of Bonds (v. 14). The unity of Israel was now broken, allowing for its destruction. As history has well recorded, while Jerusalem was under siege by Romans (A.D. 68\u201370), Jewish forces within the city were divided, fighting a civil war against each other, Jewish soldiers killing Jewish soldiers and destroying each other\u2019s food supply. This eventually weakened the city for the Romans to take it and destroy it. And so Israel became the flock of slaughter as 1,100,000 were killed.
\nLater in Zechariah 13:7 the prophet predicted that the rejection of the Messianic Shepherd will include His death which, in turn, will result in the scattering of the flock of Israel.
\nThe theme of the Messiah as the Good Shepherd is picked up by Jesus in John 10:1\u201318. Jesus is the Good Shepherd (vv. 1\u20136). The Pharisees, their present shepherds, have gained rule over the flock and who climbeth up some other way like a thief and a robber (v. 1). Jesus, however, came the right way because He came the way the Old Testament prophets predicted (v. 2). His own sheep recognized Jesus to be the True Shepherd and they follow Him (vv. 3\u20136). They are the poor of the flock of Zechariah 11. Jesus then declared Himself to be the door of the sheep (vv. 7\u201310). Not only is He the shepherd, but He is the door of the sheepfold (v. 7). Those who usurped authority before Him are thieves and robbers and not true shepherds (v. 8). Those individual sheep who came through Him as the door will find salvation and spiritual food and pasture (v. 9). The believing remnant will find this to be true. The Messianic Shepherd has come to provide the sheep with abundant life (v. 10). Whereas earlier (vv. 1\u20136) Jesus pictured Himself as the Good Shepherd, He now identifies Himself in that role (vv. 11\u201318). He is the Good Shepherd and a good shepherd will willingly lay down His life for the sheep (v. 11). The hireling has no love for the sheep and will flee in the face of danger leaving the sheep to be destroyed (vv. 12\u201313). However, Jesus the Good Shepherd will lay down His life for His sheep (v. 14\u201315). Furthermore, Jesus has other sheep \u2026 which are not of this fold (v. 16). The sheep of this fold are the Jewish sheep. The fold is Israel and the believing sheep of this fold are the Remnant of Israel. The other sheep are the Gentile believers. The Good Shepherd will unite together the believing Jewish and Gentile sheep to become one flock under one shepherd. This new one flock is the same as the one new man of Ephesians 2:11\u201316. It is the Church, the Body of Messiah with the Messiah as its Head. It is to achieve this new unity that the Messiah will die (vv. 17\u201318). Some of these truths are repeated in verses 26\u201330, adding the aspect that the Messiah\u2019s sheep have eternal security. In Matthew 25:31\u201346, the Gentile believers of the Tribulation were also pictured as sheep.<\/p>\n
h. The Inheritance of God<\/p>\n
Israel is also symbolically illustrated as God\u2019s inheritance, especially in the Psalms. It is first mentioned in Deuteronomy 9:29 where they are described as God\u2019s inheritance because they are God\u2019s people; this was part of the reason they were rescued from Egypt. The same relationship between people and inheritance is brought out later in Deuteronomy 32:9. In Hebrew poetic parallelism, Israel is declared to be Jehovah\u2019s people and Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. In 1 Samuel 10:2, Saul was anointed to become the first king of Israel. Samuel defined it as Jehovah hath anointed thee to be prince over his inheritance. When Solomon dedicated his Temple, he declared Israel to be God\u2019s people and inheritance whom God had rescued out of Egypt (1 Kings 8:51).
\nThis is a common motif in the Psalms. In Psalm 28:9, the psalmist implores God to save His people and to bless thine inheritance. In Psalm 33:12, Israel is described as a nation whose God is Jehovah, and as the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Yet God was angry with his inheritance and for that reason He gave his people over also unto the sword (Ps. 78:62). Not only Saul, but David was also chosen to be the shepherd over his people and Israel his inheritance (Ps. 78:71). Although at times God will turn His inheritance over to the sword, He will never cast off his people, nor will He ever forsake his inheritance (Ps. 94:14). However, if necessary, God will at times pour out His wrath against his people and will abhor his inheritance (Ps. 106:40). However, God will ultimately restore the tribes of thine inheritance (Isa. 63:17).<\/p>\n
i. The Wife of Jehovah<\/p>\n
Any clear understanding of the Bible requires that proper distinctions be maintained. One of these key biblical distinctions is the distinction between Israel and the Church. A failure to maintain this distinction will only result in a misinterpretation of what the Scriptures teach. One of the ways this distinction is made is the distinction between the wife and the bride. In the Bible, Israel is represented as the Wife of Jehovah, whereas the Church is represented as the Bride of Christ. The relationship of Israel as the Wife of Jehovah to God her Husband undergoes six distinct stages through which this relationship develops.<\/p>\n
(1) Stage One: The Marriage Contract<\/p>\n
To a casual and superficial reader, the Book of Deuteronomy seems to be merely a repetition of what Moses had written earlier in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. In fact, the very title Deuteronomy means a \u201csecond law\u201d or a repetition of the law. Indeed almost everything found in the Book of Deuteronomy can also be found in the three preceding books of the Law of Moses. However, Deuteronomy is not merely a book of repetitions. The entire format of the Book of Deuteronomy is that of both an ancient treaty and an ancient marriage contract. In other words, what Moses did in Deuteronomy was to take various facets of the three earlier books and present them in the form of an ancient marriage contract. In this book is found the marriage contract signed between Israel and God\u2014where Israel became the Wife of Jehovah. It is not feasible in this work to deal with the Book of Deuteronomy in its entirety and demonstrate how it fits into the scheme of a marriage contract. However, it is possible to concentrate on certain key passages.
\nThe first passage is Deuteronomy 5:1\u20133. This passage declares that God entered into a covenant with His people Israel at Mount Sinai. It will be seen later that the Jewish prophets viewed this covenant relationship as a marriage contract. Later, in Deuteronomy 6:10\u201315, God announced His jealousy over His wife, Israel. In this passage, Israel is warned against adultery. Since Jehovah is Israel\u2019s Husband, the means by which Israel can be guilty of adultery is by the worship of other gods. God warned Israel not to become an adulteress wife by playing around with other gods. The reason given is God\u2019s burning jealousy: lest it be kindled against her and eventually cause her expulsion out of the land which God has given her. In Deuteronomy 7:6\u201311, Israel is again described as the one chosen by God. In verse six, God described the choosing; in verses seven and eight, He gave the reason. God did not choose Israel as His wife due to her size, because Israel was small. He had only one basic reason and that was His love for Israel. Because of His love for Israel, He entered into a covenant relationship with her. This covenant relationship is the marriage contract of Deuteronomy. Now Israel has an obligation (vv. 9\u201311). God implored Israel to faithfulness, to be a faithful wife to Jehovah by being obedient and subject to Him.
\nAs was stated earlier, the prophets looked at this covenant relationship as a marriage contract. One example is found in Ezekiel 16:8:<\/p>\n
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord Jehovah, and thou becamest mine.<\/p>\n
The words used by Ezekiel are words of the wedding night; the covenant at Sinai and the relationship between Israel and Jehovah is described by the prophet in the terms of the wedding night.
\nThus, in the first stage of her relationship as the Wife of Jehovah, Israel entered into a marriage contract and this marriage contract is the Book of Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n
(2) Stage Two: The Great Adultery<\/p>\n
Although Israel was sternly admonished to remain faithful to her Husband, rather than being faithful she was guilty of a great adultery described by several Old Testament prophets. Jeremiah 3:1\u20135 states that Israel was not merely guilty of a one-time adultery, but she was guilty of playing the harlot with many lovers. Later, in verse 20, Jeremiah wrote that Israel was indeed like a wife who has turned away from her husband. She was a wife guilty of adultery. Because of this adultery, the original marriage contract was broken, according to Jeremiah 31:32:<\/p>\n
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah.<\/p>\n
Adultery meant that the marriage contract was null and void. Jeremiah showed that the problem was not with the Husband, for God was a good Husband. Rather, the problem was with the wife who insisted on going after other gods and so became guilty of the great adultery.
\nAnother prophet, Ezekiel, described this great adultery in an extended passage found in 16:15\u201334. Ezekiel declares Israel\u2019s guilt by showing that she had indeed played the part of a prostitute (v. 15). Although prostitutes generally receive money for their services, Israel was different because she paid her lovers (vv. 16\u201319), and she paid them with the very things that her true Husband, God, had given to her as His wife. Furthermore, Israel\u2019s very children were sacrificed to these lovers, the pagan gods (vv. 20\u201321). Israel indeed forgot the love of her youth when God first entered into the covenant relationship with her (v. 22). In verses 23\u201329, Ezekiel portrayed the lovers that Israel went after. These lovers were the gods of the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. The absurdity of Israel\u2019s adultery is clearly spelled out here. The very nations which these foreign gods represented did the most to hurt Israel. Israel suffered terribly from the hands of the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. Yet, rather than turning to her own husband, Jehovah, Israel went after the gods of these nations and committed adultery with those who hurt her the most. Israel\u2019s weak heart caused her to commit adultery to the point of bribing her lovers (vv. 30\u201334).
\nAnother prophet, Hosea, also described this adultery in Hosea 2:2\u20135. Hosea declared the charge God had against Israel: she was guilty of harlotry. She committed adultery (vv. 2\u20133), she produced children of adultery and hence they were illegitimate (v. 4), and she played the part of a prostitute (v. 5).
\nIn spite of God\u2019s manifold blessings to Israel, Israel turned away from God in order to play the part of a prostitute and was guilty of the great adultery.<\/p>\n
(3) Stage Three: The Separation<\/p>\n
Because of this adultery, in the days of Isaiah a separation took place between God and Israel. This separation is described in Isaiah 50:1:<\/p>\n
Thus saith Jehovah, Where is the bill of your mother\u2019s divorcement, wherewith I have put her away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, and for your transgressions was your mother put away.<\/p>\n
According to Deuteronomy 24:1, if a husband wished to divorce his wife, he had to write out a bill of divorcement. After having written it out in longhand, he would give it to his wife and then the divorce was final. By the time Isaiah became a prophet, Israel\u2019s adultery was so great that it was necessary for God to withhold His many blessings from her: the blessings described in the Book of Deuteronomy, to be received if Israel remained faithful. This removal of the material provisions caused many in Israel to say that God had divorced His wife. Therefore, God spoke to Isaiah the prophet stating that He had not yet divorced His wife. If God had divorced His wife, He would have given to Israel a bill of divorcement; and since no such bill of divorcement was in hand, it meant that a divorce had not taken place. Rather than a divorce, a separation had taken place, but this separation was caused by their own sins. The sin of Israel in committing adultery created the need for the separation. In the days of Isaiah, God and Israel were not divorced, but they were separated. This separation was due to Israel\u2019s adultery and lasted approximately one hundred years.<\/p>\n
(4) Stage Four: The Divorce<\/p>\n
Even after the one hundred years of separation, during which time the blessings of Deuteronomy continued to be withheld, Israel still failed to return to God, her husband. Thus, God was forced to finally issue the bill of divorcement and to divorce His wife, Israel. This bill of divorcement is contained in Jeremiah 3:6\u201310. After once again declaring Israel guilty of adultery (vv. 6\u20138), God finally issued His bill of divorcement. To a great extent, almost all of Jeremiah can be called God\u2019s bill of divorcement of Israel, but especially the passage now under consideration. The reason this bill of divorcement was necessary was due to the adulterous pollution of the land God had given to Israel (vv. 9\u201310).
\nIn the days of Jeremiah the prophet, Israel was divorced. One hundred years of separation failed to produce repentance in Israel, and finally God had no other choice but to issue the bill of divorcement on the grounds of adultery.<\/p>\n
(5) Stage Five: The Punishment<\/p>\n
The Book of Deuteronomy, the original marriage contract, clearly declared that if Israel proved unfaithful as Jehovah\u2019s wife it would become necessary for God to punish Israel for her unfaithfulness. Following the issuance of the bill of divorcement comes a long period of the punishment of Israel for her sins.
\nSeveral Old Testament prophecies speak of the punishment of Israel for her unfaithfulness, such as Ezekiel 16:35\u201343. After stating the cause for the punishment, adultery (vv. 35\u201336), Ezekiel described the punishment itself (vv. 37\u201341). Because she worshipped the gods of the Egyptians, the Egyptians will destroy her. Because she worshipped the deities of Assyria, the Assyrians will devastate her. Because she worshipped the idols of Babylon, the Babylonians will make her desolate. The nations who worshipped the very gods Israel committed adultery with will be the ones who will invade and destroy the nation of Israel. Then the jealousy of God will finally be spent (v. 42) for, as the Book of Deuteronomy declared, the punishment of Israel would be a result of God\u2019s jealousy for His wife. However, all this punishment has a specific aim. The aim of this punishment is not so God can be vengeful and get His revenge upon Israel, but rather to cause her to stop sinning and to stop her adulteries (v. 43). Later in this chapter, verses 58\u201359, Ezekiel showed that this punishment was necessary because Israel broke the marriage contract:<\/p>\n
Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith Jehovah. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will also deal with thee as thou hast done, who hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant.<\/p>\n
The program of punishment is further described in Hosea 2:6\u201313. The program itself is described in verses six and seven. Israel\u2019s searching ways will be blocked by various thorns and walls which speak of God\u2019s providential dealings with Israel (v. 6) until her search for her old lovers will prove fruitless (v. 7a). The purpose of this program is to show Israel her need for her true Husband and not for her false lovers (v. 7b). Then, in verses 8\u201313, Hosea depicted the punishment itself. It has been shown earlier that the very things God gave to Israel she used in order to pay her lovers. Now these very things she paid her lovers with will be taken away, for they belong to her Husband (vv. 8\u20139). She will finally realize her shame only when she sees herself truly spiritually naked, her joy removed, her material blessings gone: all because of the worship of the Canaanite god, Baal (vv. 10\u201313).
\nAlthough God has a long program of punishment for Israel\u2019s sins, throughout the period of punishment there is a continual call to repentance, according to Jeremiah 3:11\u201318. Jeremiah described God\u2019s continual call for Israel to repent and come back to Him (vv. 11\u201313). This call is followed by a description of the blessings God has in store for Israel once she does return to Him (vv. 14\u201318). After declaring that Jehovah will again be a Husband to her (v. 14), He also promised to restore and to provide for Israel like a husband should (vv. 15\u201318). All these beautiful material blessings are promised to Israel and are awaiting her return to her Husband.
\nTo this day Israel is still in the fifth stage of her historical and prophetic relationship with Jehovah, her Husband. Israel is still in the period of punishment. This is evidenced by the persecutions of the Jews around the world and by the present world-wide dispersion. There is one stage yet to come.<\/p>\n
(6) Stage Six: The Remarriage with Restored Blessings<\/p>\n
The Jewish prophets did not leave things hopeless. They spoke of a coming day when Israel will again become the restored Wife of Jehovah. Of course, this will require a new marriage contract, and this marriage contract is found in Jeremiah 31:31\u201334. What is often known as the New Covenant is in many respects a new marriage contract that God will make with the two Houses of Israel and Judah (v. 31). This new covenant of marriage will be necessary because the old marriage covenant was broken (v. 32). Although God was a good Husband, Israel strayed and by means of adultery caused the original marriage contract to be broken. With this new marriage contract Israel will again be restored to the place of blessing (vv. 33\u201334).
\nThis remarriage on the basis of a new marriage contract is also described in Ezekiel 16:60\u201363. According to Ezekiel, God will enter into an everlasting covenant with Israel in the future. This everlasting covenant is the same as that of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31\u201334. This new and everlasting covenant is also a new marriage contract upon which the remarriage will be based.
\nThe restoration of Israel as Jehovah\u2019s wife is also described in Isaiah 54:1\u20138. Isaiah began by declaring that the restored wife will now begin to bear legitimate children (vv. 1\u20133). Israel had produced a lot more children in desolation than she produced when she was previously married to Jehovah (v. 1). In fact, Israel produced many illegitimate children and very few legitimate ones, and those who were legitimate were often sacrificed to the foreign gods. However, now all this is to change. Isaiah tells Israel to enlarge her house (vv. 2\u20133) in order to accommodate the many legitimate children about to come. The reason for this new activity and the coming legitimate children is because of the reunion of the marriage (vv. 4\u20138). Israel\u2019s former adulteries will all be forgotten (v. 4), and Jehovah will once again be her Husband (v. 5). God will again court His wife as He courted her when she was a youth (v. 6), and all past forsakings will now be substituted by renewed blessings (vv. 7\u20138).
\nThis remarriage is further described by Isaiah 62:4\u20135. Israel\u2019s land that she lost because of her adultery is to be totally restored (v. 4). Like a new husband rejoices over his virgin bride, in this same way God will rejoice over His restored wife (v. 5).
\nHosea, who had much to say about the adulteries of Israel, also spoke of Israel\u2019s reunion with her husband in 2:14\u201323. Hosea began by describing the courtship and the wooing in the wilderness (vv. 14\u201315). Israel will again be allured into the wilderness where God will speak to her heart in courtship. When she responds, all her vineyards will be restored. The four results of this restoration are described next (vv. 16\u201323). The first result is that Israel will no longer address God as Baali, but only as Ishi (vv. 16\u201317). There is a very interesting play upon words in the Hebrew text by the usage of these two words. Both words, Baali and Ishi, are good Hebrew words meaning \u201cmy husband.\u201d While they both mean \u201cmy husband,\u201d there is a slight difference of emphasis in their meaning. Ishi means \u201cmy husband\u201d in the sense of \u201cmy man.\u201d Baali means \u201cmy husband\u201d in the sense of \u201cmy master.\u201d Both words are perfectly good Hebrew words for \u201cmy husband\u201d and are used interchangeably throughout the Scriptures. Nevertheless, God said that the title of Baali will no longer be used, but only Ishi. The reason for this is the fact that the word Baali sounds very much like one of the gods with whom Israel committed adultery: the god, Baal. If Israel was to continue to call God Baali in the future, she might begin to remember her former lover, Baal. In order to avoid even the hint of remembrance of the other lover, Baal, Israel will no longer address God as Baali, but only as Ishi. The second result is peace and safety (v. 18); Israel will never again be invaded by the nations whose gods she once worshipped. The third result is the betrothal (vv. 19\u201320). The word betroth is used three different times, and the three usages describe the three elements of this new betrothal: first, as to time, it will be forever; second, as to content, it will be in righteousness, justice, lovingkindness and mercy; and, third, as to quality, it will be in faithfulness. The fourth result is the new meaning to Jezreel (vv. 21\u201323). This Hebrew name can mean two things: \u201cGod scatters\u201d and \u201cGod sows.\u201d During the period of punishment, Israel experienced the first meaning, God scatters. Now Israel will experience the second meaning, God sows. The Valley of Jezreel, Israel\u2019s largest valley and the most productive, had often failed to produce because God removed His blessings. Now, with the new marriage having taken place, all of God\u2019s blessings will be restored in the Valley of Jezreel, and it will produce almost as soon as the field is sown.<\/p>\n
2. Anti-Semitism<\/p>\n
A basic definition of anti-Semitism is \u201cthe hatred or persecution of the Jew.\u201d To dislike a person who merely happens to be Jewish is not anti-Semitism. To dislike a person because he is Jewish is anti-Semitism. It could be passive or active, mild or severe. Anti-Semitism comes in various forms: political, national, religious, economic, social, theological, etc. The concern of Israelology is on theological anti-Semitism and its theological ramifications. It cannot be said that a specific theological position is the cause of anti-Semitism. In the survey of the literature in this work, theological anti-Semitism was found primarily in Covenant Theology. Does Covenant Theology cause anti-Semitism? Probably not. For example, in the chapters on Covenant Postmillennialism, Boettner a number of times expressed anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views to the point that he wished the Jews would disappear. Murray, however, though in the same theological camp, expressed a love and concern for the Jews. The same dichotomy exists in Covenant Amillennialism and Covenant Premillennialism. It probably would be wrong to say that Covenant Theology results in anti-Semitism. There is also some anti-Semitism among Dispensationalists, but it is very rare and infrequent and virtually non-existent in the writings of their leaders. The most that could be concluded is this: if a person does have anti-Semitic tendencies, he is more apt to be attracted to Covenant Theology or to a theology that follows some of the precepts of Covenant Theology such as the Church being the New Israel through which all promises are now being fulfilled than to Dispensationalism.<\/p>\n
a. The Cause of Anti-Semitism<\/p>\n
Theologically, Satan is the cause of anti-Semitism. Dr. Feinberg has said it well:<\/p>\n
What, then, is the true and only cause? In a word, it is Satan. The solution is to be found in Revelation 12. Satan hates the nation through whom has come so much blessing to the world, especially the Savior. First, the dragon is incensed against the child of the woman (Jesus Christ), then he goes to make war with the remnant of her seed, Israel. Moreover, when Satan is angry against Israel, it always culminates in defiance against the Lord Jesus Christ. The two are inseparable.<\/p>\n
Satan\u2019s war against the Jews between Abraham and the first coming was to try to thwart the first coming (Rev. 12:1\u20135). His present and future war against the Jews is to thwart the second coming (Rev. 12:12\u201314). It has been pointed out earlier that the basis of the second coming is Israel\u2019s national salvation and Jesus will not come back until the Jewish people ask Him to. If Satan can ever succeed in destroying the Jews before there is a national salvation, then Satan\u2019s career is eternally safe. For this reason he has had a perpetual, unending war against the Jew. This is why once the Tribulation comes and Satan knows his time is short, he will expend all his energies to try to destroy the Jews once and for all. The biblical cause of anti-Semitism is Satan. God permits it; and the reason it is within His permissive will is Israel\u2019s sins. Nevertheless, Satan is the cause and the Gentile nations are the means he uses.<\/p>\n
b. Anti-Semitism and the Abrahamic Covenant<\/p>\n
Much has already been said about the Abrahamic Covenant, but we have hardly exhausted all the implications involved in it. On the issue of anti-Semitism, the key verse is Genesis 12:3: I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse.
\nAs observed in this covenant, God has promised Abraham three things: first, that from him will come forth a people or a nation; second, to this nation God will give a land; and, third, God will bless those who bless this nation and curse those who curse it. It is the third point with which we are concerned: I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse. Very early in human history a principle was set down to control the relationship of the Jews with the Gentiles. Politically speaking, this statement is God\u2019s foreign policy to the Gentiles in their relationship with the Jewish people. It is restated in wider terms in Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139:<\/p>\n
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the children of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. For Jehovah\u2019s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.<\/p>\n
It is not only God\u2019s program for Israel that centers around the Jews, but His program for the Gentiles as well. When God in His providence sets down boundaries for the Gentile nations, He somehow takes into account the number of Jews that will play a role in that nation\u2019s history.
\nThe history of philosophy is simply the retracing and reviewing of the ways man has tried to explain his being, knowledge, and other areas with which philosophy is concerned. The philosophy of history, however, tries to extract principles from history by which history can be understood and provide a prospectus of how history will develop in the future. It is the search for a unifying principle by which history can be understood. In the Abrahamic Covenant there is such a principle: those who bless the Jews will be blessed and those who curse them will be cursed. Understanding this principle will help to explain much in history that cannot be explained any other way. The Scriptures show how this principle works itself out both on the individual level (how it works its way out in the lives of various individuals) and the national level (how it works itself out in the history of nations). Many things in Jewish history begin to make sense only if God\u2019s principle of His philosophy of history is clearly understood. One thing history bears witness to many times over is that every nation that has ever dared to raise its hand against the Jew has fallen. The Jew \u201chas stood at the graveside of all his enemies.\u201d
\nBooks on Jewish history written from a secular viewpoint are generally agreed that Jewish existence is an enigma. Historians with different philosophies of history, such as Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee, find themselves at a loss to explain the Jews. This is pointed out by Max I. Dimont:<\/p>\n
Since the history of the Jews did not fit into either Spengler\u2019s or Toynbee\u2019s system, Spengler ignored them and Toynbee reduced them to an occasional footnote, describing the Jews as fossils of history.<\/p>\n
Philosophies of history based on non-biblical presuppositions fail to provide any answer to Jewish survival. This is clear from the very writings of those who tried to explain history by a certain system only to have it crack down in the face of the Jews. Mark Twain wrote:<\/p>\n
He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?<\/p>\n
A former communist by the name of Nicholas Berdyaev writes:<\/p>\n
I remember how the materialist interpretation of history, when I attempted in my youth to verify it by applying it to the destinies of the people, broke down in the case of the Jews, where destiny seemed absolutely inexplicable from the materialistic standpoint.\u2026 According to the materialistic \u2026 criterion, this people ought long ago to have perished. Its survival is a mysterious and wonderful phenomenon demonstrating that the life of this people is governed by a special predetermination, transcending the processes of adaptation expounded by the materialistic interpretation of history. The survival of the Jews \u2026 their endurance under absolutely peculiar conditions and the fateful role played by them in history; all these point to the peculiar and mysterious foundations of their destiny.<\/p>\n
Not only have Gentile historians, looking at the Jews, come to a dead end in trying to explain them, but the Jews themselves have not been able to explain their existence in any consistent way. The answer to Mark Twain\u2019s question, \u201cWhat is the secret of his immortality?\u201d lies in the outworking of the Abrahamic Covenant. The answer lies in this cry of the last of the Old Testament prophets: For I, Jehovah, change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Mal. 3:6)
\nThe Bible, then, can give the proper explanation of the role the Jewish people play in history. Their destruction is impossible. It is true that great parts of the Jewish people have been destroyed through various anti-Semitic campaigns, but the Jewish people as a distinct entity cannot themselves be destroyed.
\nFor the anti-Semite who cannot be persuaded by the Scriptures to drop his anti-Semitism, the Bible has some useful information. The Bible provides the one method that will work in destroying the Jews. This method is found in Jeremiah 31:35\u201337:<\/p>\n
Thus saith Jehovah, who giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who stirreth up the sea, so that the waves thereof roar; Jehovah of hosts is his name: If these ordinances depart from before me, saith Jehovah, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith Jehovah: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, then will I also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith Jehovah.<\/p>\n
The message of the Bible to the anti-Semite is: if you want to destroy the Jews, then you must first destroy the sun, moon, and stars; then, and only then, according to the promise of God, can the Jews be destroyed.<\/p>\n
3. Israelology and Systematic Theology<\/p>\n
Systematic Theology has been subdivided and compartmentalized into the divisions listed in the first chapter. This makes it easier to categorize all that the Bible teaches about any one subject. However, each section of Systematic Theology overlaps with other sections. Christology overlaps with Soteriology since it is impossible to discuss Christ apart from the salvation He provided, or to discuss salvation apart from the Savior. Angelology will overlap with Satanology since Satan too is an angel and both will overlap with Demonology since demons are fallen angels and Satan is their leader. Israelology also overlaps with other sections of Systematic Theology; the purpose of this concluding section is to discuss the influence of Israelology on these other divisions. Things detailed in earlier parts of this work will only be mentioned. New things will receive more elaboration.<\/p>\n
a. Bibliology: The Doctrine of the Scriptures<\/p>\n
One point of intersection between Israelology and Bibliology has to do with the authorship of Scripture. While God is the ultimate author, He chose to reveal it through the Jewish people. This was true of the Law of Moses, as stated by Deuteronomy 4:8:<\/p>\n
And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?<\/p>\n
The same point is repeated in Deuteronomy 29:29:<\/p>\n
The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.<\/p>\n
This is also true of the Scriptures as a whole, according to Psalm 147:19:<\/p>\n
He showeth his word unto Jacob, His statutes and his ordinances unto Israel.<\/p>\n
The same truth is brought out in the New Testament. Romans 3:1\u20132, asking the question concerning the advantage of the Jew answers much every way and then reveals the key advantage: first of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. The oracles refer to God\u2019s divine revelation; this was entrusted to the Jew both for recording and preserving it. For that reason, every author of every book of Scripture was a Jew. The same point is made in Romans 9:4:<\/p>\n
\u2026 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; \u2026<\/p>\n
This passage lists four facets of Scripture and all belong to Israel. The covenants are the four unconditional covenants. The giving of the law is the one conditional covenant, the Mosaic. The service of God is the whole Levitical system. The promises are the prophetic and messianic promises. These are all facets of Scripture and Scripture is a product of Israel.
\nThe covenants of the Bible are part of Bibliology; Israelology would stress that five of the eight biblical covenants are Jewish covenants, four of which are eternal and unconditional while one is temporary and conditional. These will be fulfilled by, through and to Israel and not the Church. The Church is only a partaker of spiritual blessings of the Jewish covenants. This has already been discussed in detail.
\nAnother key factor under Bibliology concerns the way the New Testament quotes the Old. It has been shown several times that this is a major evidence Covenant Theologians use to prove that the Old Testament prophesies cannot be understood literally. They claim that the New Testament \u201cchanged\u201d the meaning of the Old Testament or \u201creinterpreted\u201d it. Even Covenant Premillennialism has a hard time using the Old Testament as evidence for their Premillennialism. What this boils down to is that the original intended meaning of the Old Testament was changed by the New and this requires an ignoring of the original context. The Old Testament cannot be understood on its own merit and saints had to wait until the writings of the New to understand the Old. According to Covenant Theology, in light of the New Testament\u2019s use of the Old Testament prophecy, these prophecies cannot be understood literally. What they fail to see is that the New Testament also treats historical passages in the Old Testament in the same way, but does not intend to mean that the historical event never literally happened. In Galatians 4:21\u201331, Paul gives an allegorical application to the story of Sarah and Hagar, and Isaac and Ishmael, but he does not deny that these were literal people and that the Genesis account of their history literally did happen. The solution to the problem is simply to recognize that the New Testament quotes the Old in four different ways. This was a typical Jewish way of quoting the Old Testament in that period and the writers were Jews. They often gave a spiritual meaning or a new application to an Old Testament text without denying that what the original said literally did or will happen. There is one example of each of the four ways in Matthew two and so this will be the basis for explaining them.
\nThe first is called literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment. This example is found in Matthew 2:5\u20136, which quotes Micah 5:2. In the original context of Micah 5:2, the prophet is speaking prophetically and prophesying that whenever the Messiah is born, He will be born in Bethlehem of Judah. That is the literal meaning of Micah 5:2. When a literal prophecy is fulfilled in the New Testament, it is quoted as a literal fulfillment. Many prophecies fall into this category, such as Isaiah 7:14; 52:13\u201353:12; Zechariah 9:9; etc.
\nThe second is called literal plus typical. This example is found in Matthew 2:15, which is a quotation of Hosea 11:1. However, the original context is not a prophecy, it is an historical event. It is a reference to the Exodus when Israel, the national son of God, was brought out of Egypt. It is obvious that Hosea is thinking of literal Israel for in the following verses he points out how Israel quickly slipped into idolatry. The literal meaning in context of Hosea 11:1 is a reference to the Exodus. There is nothing in the New Testament that can change or reinterpret the meaning of Hosea 11:1, nor does the New Testament deny that the literal Exodus actually happened. However, Israel as the national son of God coming out of Egypt becomes a type of the individual Son of God, the Messiah coming out of Egypt. The passage is quoted, not as a fulfillment of prophecy, since Hosea 11:1 was not a prophecy to begin with, but as a type. Matthew does not deny, change, or reinterpret the original meaning. He understands it literally, but the literal Old Testament event becomes a type of a New Testament event. This is literal plus typical. Many of the citations in the Book of Hebrews of Exodus and Leviticus fall into this category.
\nThe third is called literal plus application. This example is found in Matthew 2:17\u201318 which is a quotation of Jeremiah 31:15. In the original context, Jeremiah is speaking of an event soon to come as the Babylonian Captivity begins. As the Jewish young men were being taken into captivity, they went by the town of Ramah. Not too far from Ramah is where Rachel was buried and she was the symbol of Jewish motherhood. As the young men were marched toward Babylon, the Jewish mothers of Ramah came out weeping for sons they will never see again. Jeremiah pictured the scene as Rachel weeping for her children. This is the literal meaning of Jeremiah 31:15. The New Testament cannot change or reinterpret what this verse means in that context, nor does it try to do so. In this category, there is a New Testament event that has one point of similarity with the Old Testament event. The verse is quoted as an application. The one point of similarity between Ramah and Bethlehem is that once again Jewish mothers are weeping for sons they will never see again and so the Old Testament passage is applied to the New Testament event. Otherwise, everything else is different. In Jeremiah, the event takes place in Ramah, north of Jerusalem, but in Matthew, it takes place in Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem. In Matthew, they die, but in Jeremiah they are still alive and are going into captivity. This is literal plus application. The original text may be history or prophecy. The Jeremiah quote is an example of history. An example of prophecy is in Acts 2:16\u201321 which quotes Joel 2:28\u201332. Nothing that happened in Acts two was predicted by Joel two. What actually did happen in Acts two (the speaking in tongues) was not mentioned by Joel. What Joel did mention (dreams, visions, the sun darkened, the moon turned into blood) did not happen in Acts two. Joel was speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the whole nation of Israel in the last days, while Acts two speaks of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Twelve Apostles or, at most, on the 120 in the Upper Room. This is a far cry from Joel\u2019s all flesh. However, there was one point of similarity, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in unusual manifestations. Acts two does not change or reinterpret Joel two, nor does it deny that Joel two will have a literal fulfillment when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on the whole nation of Israel. It is simply applying it to a New Testament event because of one point of similarity.
\nThe fourth is called summation. The example is found in Matthew 2:23: \u2026 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene. However, no such statement is found anywhere in the Old Testament. Since Matthew used the plural prophets, one should be able to find at least two, yet there is not even one. The fourth category does not have an actual quotation as in the first three categories, but only a summary of what the prophets actually said. The plural use of prophets is a clue to this category. In the first century, Nazarenes were a people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame (John 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isa. 53:3) and this is summarized by the term, Nazarene. Another example of this category is Luke 18:31\u201333. Using the plural for prophet again, Jesus states that the time for fulfillment has come and He states what is to be fulfilled: the Messiah will go to Jerusalem, be turned over to the Gentiles; the Gentiles will mock Him, treat Him shamefully, spit on Him, scourge Him, and kill Him, but He will rise again the third day. Not one prophet ever said all this, but the prophets together did say all this. Hence, this is a summation.
\nEvery New Testament quotation of the Old will fit into one of these four categories. The procedure is not simply \u201cto interpret the Old by the New\u201d as Covenant Theology insists. The procedure is first to see what the original quotation means in its own context. Once that is determined, then it can also be determined in just which of the four categories the quotation belongs. There is no need to conclude that the New Testament changes or reinterprets the Old Testament. Even preachers today make applications of biblical historic or prophetic texts to the modern situation without implying that that was the intent of the original author.<\/p>\n
b. Theology Proper: The Doctrine of God<\/p>\n
This part of Systematic Theology is concerned with the nature of God, the works of God in creation, the Trinity, and a study of God the Father.
\nIsraelology overlaps with the latter. The Fatherhood of God is in six categories; The Father of Christ (Matt. 3:17; 11:27; John 1:14, 18; 3:16\u201317; 8:54; 14:12\u201313); the Father of creation (1 Cor. 8:6; James 1:17); the Father of all angels (Gen. 6:1\u20134; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7); the Father of all men (Acts 17:29; Eph. 3:14\u201315; Heb. 12:9); the Father of Israel (Exod. 4:22; Deut. 32:6; Isa. 64:8; Jer. 3:4; Hos. 11:1; Mal. 1:6); and, the Father of believers (Matt 5:45; 6:6\u201315; John 1:12; Rom. 8:14\u201316; 1 John 3:1). Gentile unbelievers fall under the fourth category only. Jewish unbelievers fall under the fourth and fifth. Gentile believers fall under the fourth and sixth. Jewish believers fall under the fourth, fifth and sixth categories.
\nAnother aspect of Theology Proper concerns God\u2019s work of election and here Israelology would stress the issue of Israel\u2019s national election discussed earlier in this chapter.<\/p>\n
c. Christology: The Doctrine of the Son<\/p>\n
The most obvious intersection of Israelology and Christology has to do with the Jewishness of Jesus. The Messiah was to be of the Seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through the Tribe of Judah and the family of David. Indeed, He was to be the ideal Israelite and is called by that name in Isaiah 49:3: Thou art my servant; Israel, in whom I will be glorified. This individual Israel is distinguished from the nation of Israel in verses 5\u20139. The New Testament does not try to prove the Jewishness of Jesus; it assumes it to be true and too obvious to need proving. The genealogies show Him to be of the Seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through the Tribe of Judah and from the family of David (Matt. 1:1\u201316; Luke 3:23\u201338). His lineage from Judah is emphasized in Hebrews 7:13\u201314 and Revelation 5:5. He was always recognized on sight to be a Jew and the Samaritan woman recognized Him to be that in John 4:9:<\/p>\n
The Samaritan woman therefore said unto him, How is that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, who am a Samaritan woman?<\/p>\n
In Romans 9:5, while listing what belongs to Israel, Paul states, \u2026 of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh \u2026 In Galatians 4:4, Paul describes Jesus as One who was born under the law, showing His Jewishness, a necessity for Him to be able to redeem them that were under the law (v. 5). The connection between His Jewishness and redemption is also brought out by Hebrews 2:16\u201318.
\nOf His many messianic titles, two are relevant to Israelology. The first is Son of Abraham, which emphasizes that Jesus is a Jew. The second is Son of David, which emphasizes that Jesus is a king.
\nThe offices of Christ include prophet, priest, and king. Israelology would stress the fact that as king, Jesus is the king of the Jews and is destined to exercise that role in the Messianic Kingdom.
\nIn relationship to His temptation, it is generally recognized by theologians that Christ played a representative role with all men (Heb. 4:15) for He suffered temptation in all three areas of 1 John 2:16 (lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life). The contribution of Israelology is to add the fact that Jesus also played a representative role with Israel. This can be seen in five ways: first is the title, Son of God, which is used of Israel (Exod. 4:22\u201323; Hos. 11:1) and of Jesus (Matt. 2:15; 4:3, 6); second, both were tested in the wilderness, true of Israel (1 Cor. 10:1\u201313) and true of Jesus (Mark 1:12\u201313); third, the figure \u201cforty\u201d was involved in both testings, for Israel it was forty years and for Jesus it was forty days; fourth is the presence of the Holy Spirit who was present with Israel in the wilderness (Isa. 63:7\u201314) and with Christ in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1); and, fifth, when Jesus resisted the temptations of Satan, He did so by citations of Scripture and all three citations were from the Book of Deuteronomy, which is God\u2019s covenant book with Israel. The point of this representative role is to point out that where Israel the nation failed, the ideal individual Israel (Isa. 49:3) did not fail.
\nIsraelology would also stress the nature of the Kingdom which Jesus offered to Israel. To define this Kingdom as merely a spiritual kingdom in which He rules in the heart of men is inadequate since this is an individual issue involving salvation and many Jews did accept such an offer. It is not an offer about which the leadership of Israel is empowered to speak for the nation, nor is it a kingdom that can be \u201ctaken away\u201d from Israel. The kingdom that Jesus offered was the Messianic Kingdom which is a national issue and was something that could be nationally rejected.
\nThe earthly ministry of Jesus was primarily to Israel (Matt. 15:24) and He was sent to Israel as Savior (Acts 13:23). For that reason He forbade His disciples to go among the Samaritans and Gentiles and limited their ministry to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:6). Only after the resurrection did they receive a wider commission (Matt. 28:18\u201320).<\/p>\n
d. Pneumatology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit<\/p>\n
The primary element that Israelology would emphasize in Pneumatology is the fact that Israel is to experience an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days. It will be this outpouring that will cause and lead to Israel\u2019s national salvation preceding the second coming. This outpouring is mentioned in Isaiah 32:15; 44:3; Ezekiel 39:29; Zechariah 12:10; and Joel 2:28 (quoted in Acts 2:17).<\/p>\n
e. Angelology Proper: The Doctrine of the Holy Angels<\/p>\n
Israelology in the field of Angelology Proper would point to Michael the Archangel. Michael holds two positions in the angelic hierarchy. First, he is the Archangel, or chief-angel in authority over the other angels. He alone has the position of Archangel. Second, he is also a Chief-Prince (Dan. 10:13). There are a plurality of Chief-Princes in the angelic hierarchy and Michael is one of a number. The main function of a Chief-Prince is to serve as a guardian angel over a nation. Michael is the Chief-Prince over Israel (Dan. 10:21) and it is because of his work on behalf of Israel that Israel will survive the Tribulation (Dan. 12:1). It was Michael\u2019s role as Chief-Prince that led to his disputation with Satan over the body of Moses (Jude 9).<\/p>\n
f. Satanology: The Doctrine of Satan<\/p>\n
As has been brought out earlier in this chapter, Satan has a special antagonism against Israel since this is the nation through which God works out His program of redemption. Because of this hatred of Israel, Satan stood up against Israel and tempted David to number Israel knowing it would lead to the death of many Israelites (1 Chron. 21:1). This is why Satan is found frequently in heaven for he enjoys accusing Israel before God (Zech. 3:1\u20132). This is also why in the Tribulation his primary activity will be to try to destroy Israel once and for all (Rev. 12:6\u201317). He will be largely responsible in gathering the Gentile armies against the Jews in the Campaign of Armageddon (Rev. 16:12\u201316). Satan is the source of all anti-Semitism.<\/p>\n
g. Demonology: The Doctrine of Fallen Angels<\/p>\n
The only point here is that demons share Satan\u2019s hatred of the Jews and aid him in the work of trying to destroy the Jews (Rev. 12:1\u20134). Demons will be used to help gather the Gentile armies to war against the Jews in the Armageddon War (Rev. 16:13\u201314).<\/p>\n
h. Anthropology: The Doctrine of Man<\/p>\n
Israelology makes no particular contribution in this segment of Systematic Theology.<\/p>\n
i. Hamartiology: The Doctrine of Sin<\/p>\n
There is only one element in Hamartiology which intersects with Israelology: the issue of Israel\u2019s national sin. Specifically, this sin is called the unpardonable sin and the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The content of the sin is the national rejection by Israel of the Messiahship of Jesus while He was present on the basis of being demon possessed. This led to the rescinding of the Messianic Kingdom offer, the introduction of the Mystery Kingdom, and the radical change in the ministry of Jesus for the remainder of His time on earth and the judgment of A.D. 70. The details of all this were dealt with earlier in this chapter.<\/p>\n
j. Soteriology: The Doctrine of Salvation<\/p>\n
In John 4:22, Jesus told the Samaritan woman that salvation is from the Jews. This was declared to a woman who was a member of a nation that despised the Jews. There are several ways that salvation is from the Jews: first, the Jews recorded God\u2019s program of salvation in the Scriptures; second, while salvation was always by grace through faith, the knowledge of the content of faith, what one had to believe to be saved, came through the Jews; third, the Saviour was a Jew; and, fourth, the first proclaimers of salvation through faith in Christ were Jews.
\nIn connection with the above, Israelology in Soteriology would insist that to determine the content of faith in the Old Testament, one must not read the New back into the Old and assume that the Old Testament saint had the same knowledge the New Testament saint had. The insistence of Covenant Theology that Abraham, Moses, and Paul all had to believe the same thing to be saved is far off the mark. What the Old Testament saint believed at any point of time has to be determined on the basis of progressive revelation: what had been revealed up to that point. The Old Testament must be allowed to stand on its own merit for if must have had a meaning to the people then.
\nAnother relevant issue for Israelology in Soteriology concerns Israel\u2019s national salvation when all Israel shall be saved. This has been discussed at length earlier in the chapter.
\nAnother point already discussed earlier which Israelology would emphasize concerns one of the many results of the death of the Messiah: the ending of the Law of Moses as a rule of life.
\nA major area of discussion in Soteriology is the issue of limited or unlimited atonement. Arminians believe that Christ died to obtain salvation for all men, but only those who believe will experience it. Strict Calvinists (five-point Calvinists) believe that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect and so the atonement was designed only to save the elect and nothing more. Moderate Calvinists (four-point Calvinists) believe that Christ died as a substitute for the sins of all men and to provide salvation for all men, but only the elect will believe. This provides the basis for salvation for those who believe (the elect) and it provides the basis for condemnation for those who do not believe (the non-elect). A full discussion of these issues does not belong in a work on Israelology, but on Soteriology. Israelology does come into the picture on one point. Among the evidences that Strict Calvinists use to try to prove limited atonement is the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus came to die only for his people or my people. They define his people as a reference only to the elect, the Church. They often cite Matthew 1:21:<\/p>\n
\u2026 thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.<\/p>\n
They claim that the his people is the elect and this shows that Jesus came to die only for the elect. They also cite Isaiah 53:8, 11, and Luke 1:68. It might be added that these adherents often work on the presupposition that there is only one people of God. However, this is not the normal meaning of his people or my people. If it is a reference to God\u2019s people as his people, it is mostly a reference to Jewish people, the Jewish nation. In fact, the phrase is often used of the people when they are clearly not believers and not the elect. The use of a concordance will quickly prove that the ones God calls my people or are referred to as his people are invariably the Jewish people, whether in a saved or unsaved state. The expression my people in the following passages cannot possibly be limited to the elect, but obviously refer to Israel as a nation, even in an unsaved state, and obviously non-elect: Exodus 3:7, 10; 5:1; 7:4, 16; 8:1, 20, 21, 23; 9:1, 13, 17; 10:3, 4 (it is impossible that when Pharaoh was asked to let my people go, God meant for Pharaoh to let only the elect of Israel go and not the whole nation); 22:25; 1 Samuel 9:16, 17 (when Saul was appointed by God to be king over my people, God did not mean only over the elect, but over all Israel, both elect and non-elect); 2 Samuel 3:18; 5:2; 7:7, 8, 10, 11; 1 Kings 8:16 (what was true of Saul was also true of David); 14:7; 16:2; 2 Kings 20:5 (the same was true of other kings, both good and bad); 1 Chronicles 11:2; 17:6, 7, 10 (of David); 2 Chronicles 1:11 (of Solomon); 6:5, 6; 7:13, 14; Psalm 8:1, 8; Isaiah 1:3; 3:12, 15; 5:13; 47:6; 58:1; Jeremiah 2:11, 13, 31, 32; 4:22; 5:26, 31; 6:14, 26; 7:12; 8:7, 11, 19, 21, 22; 9:1, 2, 7; 15:7; 18:15; 23:13; 50:6; Ezekiel 21:12; 33:31; Hosea 4:6, 8, 12; 11:7; Amos 7:8; 8:2; 9:10; Micah 1:9; 2:4, 8, 9; 6:3, 5, 16 (clearly speaking of unbelieving Israel). The same is true of the following passages where his people is used: Exodus 18:1; Judges 11:23 (obviously speaking of Israel as a nation); 1 Samuel 13:14; 15:1; 2 Samuel 5:12; 1 Chronicles 14:2; 22:18; 23:25 (of the reign of David); 2 Chronicles 2:11; 7:10 (of the reign of Solomon): 36:14, 16; Psalm 78:62; 106:40; Isaiah 5:25: Micah 6:2 (clearly speaking of unbelieving Israel). Another expression that should be added to the argument is thy people which is also used in ways that is impossible to limit to the elect: Exodus 32:11, 12; 33:13, 16; 34:10 (of Israel guilty of the sin of the golden calf); 1 Kings 3:8, 9; 8:30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52; 2 Chronicles 1:10; 6:21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 39 (of the reign of Solomon); Psalm 60:3; Isaiah 2:6; 10:22; Ezekiel 3:11; Daniel 9:15, 16; Hosea 4:4; Joel 2:17 (speaking of unbelieving Israel). Unless one forces his theology on the text, it is very obvious that expressions such as my people, his people, or thy people, when used of God, speaks of Israel as a nation. The above passages show that even when Israel is in a state of unbelief they are still the people of God. This is obviously not always true in a salvific sense. It is simply the result of their national election. Whatever the merits might be of the doctrine of limited atonement, such terms as my people, his people, or, thy people do not help to support this position.<\/p>\n
k. Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church<\/p>\n
As Israelology relates to Ecclesiology, it would insist on a distinction between Israel and the Church and would deny that the Church is Israel or spiritual Israel or that it is the Israel of God. It would reject the theology of transference. It would agree that the Church today is a partaker of the spiritual blessings of the Jewish covenants, but deny it is a \u201ctaker-over\u201d of those covenants. Even the partaking is limited to the spiritual blessings for it does not include the material or physical blessings. All of the above points have been detailed earlier in this chapter.
\nA major purpose of the Church is to provoke the Jews to jealousy in order to bring them to saving faith (Rom. 11:11\u201314). This too was dealt with earlier.
\nOne of the functions of the local assembly is to carry out the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18\u201320:<\/p>\n
And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.<\/p>\n
The methodology by which this is to be carried out is a matter of procedure, and the procedure is stated in Romans 1:16:<\/p>\n
For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.<\/p>\n
The gospel is the power of God, and the proper procedure is for it to go to the Jew first. The governing verb, is, is in the present tense, which emphasizes continuous action and controls both clauses: the gospel is the power of God and the gospel is to the Jew first. To interpret this verse historically to mean that the gospel was to the Jew first in the sense that it came to them first and that this is no longer the case, or that it was only true during the apostolic period, is also to say that the gospel was the power of God, but it is no longer that. Consistent exegesis would demand that if the gospel is always the power of God to save, then it is always to the Jew first. The Greek word that Paul used for the English word first is proton, which means \u201cfirst in time, in place, in order, and in importance.\u201d Applying this verse to the Great Commission, the gospel, wherever and by whatever means it goes out from the local church, must go to the Jew first. This is the biblical procedure for evangelism regardless of the method (radio, television, street meetings, literature, door-to-door, mass evangelism, etc.). Since most believers and local assemblies participate in the Great Commission mainly through monetary giving, this would require giving to the Jew first. This is true of the individual believer as well as of the local assembly in their missions budget (Rom. 15:25\u201327). What is true of the local church is also true of the missionary in the field. He must first take the gospel to any Jews who may be in the field where he is working. Regardless of his particular place of calling, his obligation is to seek out the Jews and present them with the gospel. Where there is already a command, no special leading is necessary. Many missionaries may object, but fortunately there is a biblical and an apostolic example in Paul, although he was not called to the Jews:<\/p>\n
But I speak to you that are Gentiles, Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them. (Rom. 11:13\u201314)<\/p>\n
On this point his ministry was different from Peter\u2019s:<\/p>\n
But contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision, (Gal. 2:7\u20139)<\/p>\n
Only if Romans 1:16 is understood in this way can one better understand Paul\u2019s actions in the Book of Acts. While one must be careful not to develop theology from historical books like the Book of Acts, historical books can be used to illustrate doctrine. The doctrinal statement of Romans 1:16 is that the gospel is to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. In the Book of Acts there are illustrations of that doctrinal point. Paul began his missionary work as of Acts 13:1\u20133. Paul was commissioned to be the apostle to the Gentiles in Acts nine, but only as of Acts 13:1\u20133 did he go out to do so and was sent out by the Church of Antioch. As of Acts 13 the apostle of the Gentiles went out to the Gentiles since that was Paul\u2019s calling: the apostle to the Gentiles; to the uncircumcision. Yet, regardless of specific individual calling, the principle of Romans 1:16 still stands as Paul\u2019s procedure shows. Everywhere Paul went, he went to the Jews first: Acts 13:4\u20135, 14; 14:1; 16:11\u201313; 17:1\u20132, 10, 16\u201317; 18:1\u20134, 19; 19:1, 8; 28:16\u201317.
\nActs 16:11\u201313 is one good example. This being a Sabbath prayer meeting means that it was a Jewish prayer meeting. Normally, Paul would go immediately to the synagogue, but could not do so in Philippi for the Jewish community in that town was too small to finance a synagogue. By Jewish tradition, if the Jewish community was too small to finance a synagogue, Jews were to congregate by a body of water for Sabbath. Paul, knowing this, waited until the Sabbath before he preached elsewhere because he knew that the gospel must go out to the Jew first. There, he found a little Jewish group in order to preach the gospel to them. Acts 17:16\u201317 is another good example to show exactly what Paul\u2019s procedure was. He came to Athens and saw the city given over to idolatry, and he was provoked to preach to those who worshipped these idols. It was not the Jews who worshipped the idols, because idolatry ceased to be a Jewish problem with the Babylonian Captivity. It was the Gentiles who worshipped these idols, and to these Gentiles Paul was provoked to preach. However, the principle of Romans 1:16 had to stand. According to verse 17, so, that is, for that reason, he went to the Jew first, in verse 17, and then in verse 18 he went to the Gentiles. In Acts 28:16\u201317, Paul was a prisoner and could not go to the synagogue of Rome. He, therefore, called the Jewish leaders of Rome to his prison in order to proclaim the gospel to them first.
\nEverywhere in the Book of Acts the apostle of the Gentiles, as he went out to the Gentiles, always went to the Jew first. That is because of the doctrinal statement of Romans 1:16. The gospel, whenever it goes out and by whatever means it goes out, is to go to the Jew first. This applies both to active and passive evangelism. Active evangelism is when a person is doing the work of an evangelist; as he goes out evangelizing, he is to go to the Jew first. These examples in the Book of Acts are illustrations of active evangelism. The principle also holds in passive evangelism, which is when a person is supporting those who do the work of evangelism. An example of this is in Romans 15:25\u201327:<\/p>\n
\u2026 but now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem, Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things.<\/p>\n
Although the Scriptures are very clear about this procedure, it is nevertheless denied by many. A major argument used to refute this doctrine is based on Acts 28:25\u201328. Because of these concluding words and Paul\u2019s declaration that the gospel will now go to the Gentiles, the passage is taken to mean that the gospel is no longer to the Jew first and that God has now changed His program of evangelism, superseding Romans 1:16, which was written before the Book of Acts. It is agreed that Romans was written before Acts, but this passage does not mean that the gospel is no longer to the Jew first or that God has changed His program of evangelism. The true meaning is to be found by comparing this passage with two other passages where these words had been spoken before: Acts 13:44\u201348 and 18:5\u20136. The true interpretation of Acts 28:25\u201328 is to be seen in these two passages, which indicate a local change and not an overall change in the program of evangelism. In the first passage, the Jews of Antioch of Pisidia rejected the gospel; so now in Antioch of Pisidia Paul will go to the Gentiles. In the second passage the Jews of Corinth rejected the gospel; so now Paul will turn to the Gentiles of Corinth. When he left both Antioch of Pisidia and Corinth for new territory, he went back to the Jew first in chapters 14 and 19, even after his declaration in the previous chapters that he would now go to the Gentiles. What was true of Antioch of Pisidia and Corinth is also true of Rome. The Jews of Rome had rejected the gospel, and now Paul will go to the Gentiles of Rome. There is no shift in the procedure of presenting the gospel. Acts 28 is only a continuation of the procedure already in progress of presenting the gospel to the Jew first and then turning to the Gentiles.
\nIn relation to missions, the gospel must be to the Jew first. This is not a matter of preference, but a matter of procedure. It is in the outworking of the Abrahamic Covenant in this area that the local congregation can appropriate certain blessings, for in giving the gospel to the Jew first the Church is blessing the Jews. There are certain blessings which the local church will always have as long as the gospel is preached from the pulpit and the local assembly stands true to the fundamentals of the faith. However, there are some blessings which are based on other conditions. The blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant available to the local congregation are conditioned upon the congregation\u2019s blessing the Jews, by presenting the gospel to the Jew first. Then the local church can appropriate the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, blessings that cannot be obtained any other way.
\nRelated to the above is the teaching of Romans 15:25\u201327. Part of Ecclesiology has to do with stewardship and giving. This passage puts a clear priority on giving to messianic Jewish ministries. The basis is the fact that Gentile believers have become partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings. Now they are obligated to share their material blessings with Jewish believers.
\nAnother aspect of Ecclesiology has to do with living out the spiritual life in this age. The contribution of Israelology is that the Law of Moses is not the rule of life for the believer today, but only the Law of Christ. The Law of Moses was not given to the Gentile or the Church, but only to Israel, so it did not apply to others to begin with. It applied only to Israel, but now has been rendered inoperative, especially for Jewish believers. The Sabbath law does not apply today either to Saturday or Sunday. However, Jewish believers do have the right to live and maintain a Jewish lifestyle as long as it conforms to New Testament truth. A Jewish believer has the free choice to live by many of the commandments of the Law of Moses and of Judaism and to keep many Jewish traditions as long as none of these violate New Testament truth, principles or commands. Jewish believers also have the right to plant Jewish oriented local churches (messianic congregations) with a Jewish style of worship and format as long as everything is consistent with the New Testament and nothing is done to violate it.<\/p>\n
l. Eschatology: The Doctrine of the Last Things<\/p>\n
This area has been comprehensively discussed under Israel Future. The points of emphasis Israelology would make in Eschatology would include the following: Israel was to become a state sometime before the Tribulation; the Great Tribulation begins with the signing of the seven-year covenant between Israel and the Antichrist; the Tribulation primarily relates to Israel, secondarily to the Gentiles, and not at all to the Church; the 144,000 are literally Jews; the Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel; the pre-condition to the second coming is Israel\u2019s national salvation; there will be a national salvation of Israel; there will be a national restoration of Israel; a major purpose of the Messianic Kingdom is to fulfill literally the unfulfilled elements of the unconditional Jewish covenants; and, Israel\u2019s distinct identity will continue for all eternity.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX I<\/p>\n
A REVIEW OF JEWISH ROOTS<\/p>\n
This is a recent work by Daniel Juster, who has served as founder, president, and Executive Director of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC). It claims to be the \u201cfirst comprehensive theology for Messianic Judaism\u201d totally ignoring the fact that the reviewer\u2019s work on the same subject was first published in 1974, has undergone five printings, and covers the same basic material. Juster\u2019s work is certainly more wordy, but hardly more comprehensive and, even less, \u201cfirst.\u201d
\nThe book is divided into eleven chapters. The purpose of this review is to point out problem areas and positions which Juster takes, make some corrections of his statements on Dispensationalism and offer alternative views to his as legitimate for Messianic Jewish believers.
\nThe first chapter is entitled, \u201cThe Biblical Meaning of Israel.\u201d Here Juster quickly lays down what he feels is the true foundation for Messianic Jewish practice:<\/p>\n
The reason we belabor a summary of the structure of Deuteronomy is to provide a context for truly understanding the Torah. Since Torah is central to Judaism, a Messianic Jew must gain an accurate understanding of Torah in general if he is to know how to relate his Jewish heritage to Christian theology. It is essential for integrating the Tenach (Old Testament) and the New Testament into a balanced understanding in which biblical revelation can be properly seen as a whole and in which Torah is not dismissed because of debates which arose from new contexts.<\/p>\n
The Jewish tradition has venerated the Torah above all other revelation. The reason for this is clear: Torah is foundational; all other revelation is to be tested by its consistency to Torah. Therefore, although all Scriptures are inspired by God, Torah is clearly foundational. This has vast implications for our understanding of the New Testament. Any interpretation of the New Covenant Scriptures which is inconsistent with the revelation in the Torah cannot be true. Such interpretations lend credence to the Jewish rejection of the New Testament, for there is no revelation that can be accepted if it is inconsistent with Torah: \u2026<\/p>\n
Juster insists that the Torah, which one would assume is the Law of Moses, is foundational. Juster treats it as such and in a great measure makes it a rule of life for the Jewish believer today. He differs from Covenant Theology on this point in that he does not insist that it is the same for Gentile believers. Therefore, nothing in the New Testament can be construed as contradicting the Torah and \u201call other revelation is to be tested by its consistency to Torah\u201d and so any \u201cinterpretation of the New Covenant Scriptures which is inconsistent with the revelation in the Torah cannot be true.\u201d
\nThere are two key problems in Juster\u2019s position. The first is to refer to the Law of Moses as \u201cfoundational.\u201d It certainly is that in certain ways, such as being the foundation for the national life of Israel from Mount Sinai until the seed should come. However, it is not foundational for the existence of Israel. It is far more accurate to view the Abrahamic Covenant as foundational to Israel. It is, indeed, true that Judaism \u201chas venerated the Torah above all other revelation\u201d because they view it as foundational, but this does not make it biblically true and the criterion cannot be Rabbinic Judaism for Messianic Jews. On the contrary, all revelation from God must be viewed as equal whether it is in the Torah, Prophets, Writings, or the New Testament. The second problem concerns the relationship of the New Testament to the Law of Moses. It is obvious that the New Testament does allow things disallowed by the law (eating certain meats) and disallowing what the Mosaic Law allowed (animal sacrifices for sin). Therefore, to claim that nothing in the New Testament can be inconsistent with the law leads one to a forced interpretation of the New Testament text. If the Mosaic Law was temporary, then the New Testament may say things that are \u201cinconsistent\u201d with the Law of Moses and by so doing not invalidate itself or the law since the law was the rule of life only for a limited period.
\nLater in the same chapter Juster states:<\/p>\n
\u2026 there is another dimension for understanding Israel\u2019s feasts\u2014which is especially apparent in regard to Passover. Although the feasts are part of the Mosaic system, they are also indissolubly tied to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant promised a nation to Abraham and the Exodus was a means of fulfilling the promise. Passover is the celebration of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham! If we take the Abrahamic Covenant seriously\u2014holding that Israel is promised the land and that Israel is still chosen of God as a nation\u2014it is then inconsistent to do away with celebrations of the fulfillment of God\u2019s promises to Abraham.<\/p>\n
The other feasts are celebrations of Israel\u2019s national life under God in fulfillment of God\u2019s promise to Abraham. They are a unique past of Israel\u2019s calling and identity as a nation called of God.<\/p>\n
Juster often makes dogmatic statements without any attempt to prove them exegetically and this is one example of many throughout his work. In this case it is his insistence that there are elements in the Law of Moses (such as the Passover) which are \u201cindissolubly tied to the Abrahamic Covenant.\u201d However, this is not a biblical fact. Nor does Juster try to prove it as such. The fact is that the feasts of Israel are not \u201cindissolubly\u201d connected to the Abrahamic Covenant for the covenant was in force for four centuries prior to the inauguration of the feasts. Having forced this presupposition, Juster\u2019s logic is:<\/p>\n
The Abrahamic Covenant is eternal;<\/p>\n
This covenant promised a nation;<\/p>\n
Israel became a nation with the Exodus;<\/p>\n
The \u201cPassover is the celebration of the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham;\u201d<\/p>\n
Therefore, Passover should or ought to be celebrated today. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Since the Passover was part of the Law of Moses rather than the Abrahamic Covenant, one can obey the Abrahamic Covenant without observing Passover. Of course, there is nothing wrong with Jewish believers observing the Passover and no Scripture is violated if they do; but to impose it as a mandatory obligation goes beyond what the Abrahamic Covenant contained and what the New Covenant teaches.
\nIt is also important to note that Juster believes \u201cthat Israel is still chosen of God as a nation.\u201d This is very true. However, as will be seen, Juster rejects the dispensational view of two peoples of God, even though he actually does believe it himself. In the quote, he clearly labeled Israel as a nation \u201cstill chosen of God.\u201d Although the majority do not believe, they are still the national people of God, though not in a salvific sense. He also believes that all believers comprise the one Body of the Messiah and are a people of God as well and, in this case, in a salvific sense. In spite of his denials, if his statements are carefully studied, he does believe in two peoples of God.
\nFinally, Juster states that it is \u201cinconsistent to do away with celebrations of the fulfillment of God\u2019s promises to Abraham.\u201d However, it is not so and the Abrahamic Covenant is able to stand on its own apart from the Mosaic Covenant. It is true that these celebrations \u201care a unique part of Israel\u2019s calling and identity as a nation called of God,\u201d but they are not the only things, nor does the truth of the statement warrant imposing them on Jewish believers. Furthermore, the law required that these celebrations be observed in certain specific ways which included sacrifices. Yet no one in the Messianic Jewish movement, even those who make it mandatory on the basis of the law, observe it the way the same law demanded. This is true inconsistency.
\nStill later in the chapter, Juster reveals his misunderstanding of Dispensationalism:<\/p>\n
As followers of Yeshua, Jews are part of the universal people of God. Their national identity is still Israel just as a Frenchman\u2019s is France. As part of Israel, they participate in God\u2019s purposes in the nation. Hence the relationship is not (as diagrammed) what dispensationalists describe: that one is either part of the Church, Israel, or the gentiles.<\/p>\n
Dispensationalist view<\/p>\n
Rather, one is part of either (natural) Israel, the gentiles, the Church, or (redeemed) Israel and the Church. Hence:<\/p>\n
The Church<\/p>\n
The Church is grafted into the true ancient people of God: Israel. When all Israel is saved, they will still continue as a nation but all will be part of Yeshua\u2019s congregation too\u2014our diagram is as follows:<\/p>\n
We do not accept that God\u2019s purposes for the Church ever come to an end\u2014even temporarily\u2014so that He might work through Israel. God has a covenant with Abraham\u2019s physical seed as well as his spiritual seed and He will always work through both. God does not give the Church up for Israel or Israel for the Church.<\/p>\n
Very typical of Juster\u2019s work is his lack of footnoting his sources. His description in the first diagram of the \u201cDispensationalist view\u201d is more in line with Covenant Theology than with Dispensationalism. None of the leading spokesmen for Dispensationalism believe that Jews cease to be Jews or Gentiles cease to be Gentiles (see chapter IX). Actually it is the second diagram which is the dispensational view. Dispensationalists would take issue that the \u201cChurch is grafted into the ancient people of God\u201d which apparently is Juster\u2019s view of the Olive Tree. Our earlier development of the Olive Tree (chapter X) shows it is best viewed as the place of blessing. The people are the branches in the tree.
\nAnother inaccurate statement is \u201cthat God\u2019s purpose for the Church ever come to an end\u2014even temporarily\u2014so that He might work through Israel\u201d is a dispensational view. Dispensationalism also believes that \u201cGod will work with both,\u201d though in different spheres. Dispensationalism does believe that when the fullness of Gentiles be come in, then God\u2019s purpose for the Church on earth is complete, but continues in heaven and then continues again on earth in the Messianic Kingdom. Juster does not accurately state the position of Dispensationalism, which also rejects the notion that God gives up the Church for Israel or Israel for the Church. Juster also ignores that Dispensationalists clearly distinguish between \u201cthe times of the Gentiles\u201d and \u201cthe fulness of the Gentiles.\u201d
\nOn the Mosaic Covenant, Juster makes the following comments:<\/p>\n
The next covenant of God was given through Moses. Messianic Jews believe that there are provisions within the Mosaic Covenant that are so indissolubly tied up with the Abrahamic promises that they are practices as much a part of the Abrahamic Covenant as the Mosaic.<\/p>\n
God promised Abraham a nation. The exodus is the constitutive event which fulfilled that promise. Therefore, all feasts which have the exodus in mind as the inspiration for its celebrations are incorporated in the Abrahamic Covenant; they are celebrations of God\u2019s grace. This is true of Passover, Succot and Sabbath, all of which memoralize the distinct national history of Israel and God\u2019s fulfillment of His promise of blessing and protection. Sabbath also recalls God\u2019s work as Creator. In Yeshua we enter His rest; so we celebrate Sabbath in reference to Him. The seventh-day Sabbath was not given to all nations; it was a blessing and ordinance specifically for Israel.\u2026<\/p>\n
For a Messianic Jew, the sacrificial dimensions of each of these feasts during this age have been replaced by Yeshua\u2019s sacrifice. He is the center of every feast for a Messianic Jew and we desire to show how each points to Him.\u2026<\/p>\n
The Mosaic Covenant is distinct among covenants. It was, first, Israel\u2019s national constitution and contains instructions for Israel\u2019s socio-judicial system as well as personal moral issues. Great prominence was also given to the religious temple system, the most prominent features being priesthood and the sacrifices.\u2026<\/p>\n
As a national constitution, the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. The Temple, so central to this covenant, has been destroyed. The original sacrificial dimension is therefore impossible to fulfill. The Aaronic identity of the priests who were essential to this constitution, similarly, can no longer be fully determined. As a full constitutional system\u2014especially in the dimensions of sacrifice and priesthood\u2014we see the truth as recorded by the writer to the Hebrews. In chapter nine he states, that in speaking of a New Covenant, the prophet Jeremiah treats the Old as near vanishing. Even then, it was growing old and passing away.\u2026<\/p>\n
How then shall we respond to Torah? As inspired Scripture it is \u201cprofitable for doctrine, reproof, for instruction and for training in righteousness\u201d (2 Timothy 3:16). Obviously this is a reference to the Tenach (Old Testament), because the New Testament was not yet written. Hence we must see these truths:<\/p>\n
As a constitution bound up with Temple, priesthood and sacrifice, this (Mosaic) covenant is vanishing (Hebrews 8). Yet we can still study these aspects of Torah to enlighten us concerning the spiritual meaning involved in this system, as well as for a deeper understanding of Messiah\u2019s work.\u2026<\/p>\n
There is also the dimension of Torah which relates specifically to Israel\u2019s calling as a nation and its identity. As already stated, this aspect of Torah transcends the limitations of the constitution as a covenant. The feasts and other practices connected to Israel\u2019s national heritage are maintained as part of a Jewish identity and calling. Some laws (such as the food lists, etc.) will be difficult to interpret as regards their present application.\u2026 People of good intentions may disagree on these points and our freedom in Messiah should prevail. We can say, however, that rightly understood and applied by the above criteria, Jews\u2014including followers of Yeshua\u2014are called to maintain Torah. This is not done because of legalistic bondage; it is motivated by love and the calling to be part of Israel\u2019s national identity and is laid upon hearts by God\u2019s Spirit.<\/p>\n
What Juster said earlier about the Passover, he now says about other provisions of the Law of Moses: that they are \u201cindissolubly\u201d connected with the Abrahamic Covenant so that \u201cthey are practices as much a part of the Abrahamic Covenant as the Mosaic.\u201d Juster is struggling to prove a foregone conclusion. He clearly sees that the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal. He also recognizes that the Law of Moses cannot be maintained in its entirety. Yet for Juster, the Law of Moses is crucial for his view of its role in establishing Jewish identity. His solution is to try to connect many of the facets of the Law of Moses with the Abrahamic Covenant in order to require its adherence. The above quotes show his thinking in action. He finds ways to try to connect Passover, Succot and Sabbath with the Abrahamic Covenant, though exegetically this is impossible. To say that God promised Abraham a nation (true) and to say that the Exodus is a fulfillment of the promise (true) does not mean that those celebrations commemorating Israel\u2019s deliverance are mandatory. Under the law they were, but with the death of Jesus the law has been rendered inoperative and, therefore, have become optional. To claim that these feasts \u201care incorporated in the Abrahamic Covenant\u201d has absolutely no biblical authority. Juster does not even try to prove these claims exegetically and cites no verses for his contentions.
\nJuster, like Covenant Theology, wants to maintain that the Law of Moses to some degree is still in effect, but is then forced to make major adjustments. The entire sacrificial system is done away for \u201cthe sacrificial dimensions of each of these feasts during this age have been replaced by Yeshua\u2019s sacrifice.\u201d The priesthood is also gone. Even as a \u201cnational constitution\u201d which gave \u201cinstructions for Israel\u2019s socio-judicial system\u201d the law is no longer \u201cin effect.\u201d Concerning all such things, Juster admits that today all we can do is look for \u201cthe spiritual meaning involved in this system, as well as for a deeper understanding of Messiah\u2019s work.\u201d This is something all Dispensationalists can agree with. The point is obvious: no one who claims that the Law of Moses is still in effect really believes it in practice because all of them, including Juster, are forced to make major adjustments to that same body of law. Not even Juster will claim that the law is binding today \u201cas it is written,\u201d but only as major adjustments are made.
\nJuster, always looking more to the law than to the Abrahamic Covenant for his Jewish identity, then turns to \u201cthe dimension of Torah which relates specifically to Israel\u2019s calling as a nation and its identity.\u201d These, he feels, \u201ctranscend the limitations of the constitution as a covenant\u201d and, therefore, continue in effect. These \u201cfeasts and other practices connected to Israel\u2019s national heritage are maintained as part of a Jewish identity and calling.\u201d Those elements of the law which are related to the Jewish identity continue in force and so all Jews \u201cincluding followers of Yeshua\u2014are called to maintain Torah.\u201d All this is very subjective and one should not miss the total lack of Scripture and exegesis to defend such dogmatic assertions. This, again, shows that everyone who wants to apply the law for today is forced to make adjustments and ends up subjectively picking and choosing what is required today and what is not. Juster claims that obligation to these observances \u201cis not done because of legalistic bondage.\u201d However, to impose a rule of life upon Jewish believers which the New Testament does not is legalism.
\nAnother factor that should not go unnoticed is the statement, \u201cMessianic; Jews believe \u2026\u201d This is typical throughout the book. He assumes to speak for all Messianic Jews and gives the impression that all Messianic Jews believe what he has just outlined. It is similar to saying, \u201cBaptists believe \u2026\u201d or \u201cPresbyterians believe \u2026\u201d That would be valid for a work describing what Baptists or Presbyterians believe since there are doctrinal distinctives that make one a Baptist or Presbyterian. But Messianic Jews are not that monolithic and Juster should make it clear that he speaks for some Messianic Jews, but not for Messianic Jews in general. A great number of Messianic Jews are Dispensationalists and there are Messianic Jewish congregations which are dispensational and still follow and live a Jewish lifestyle.
\nThe chapter concludes with some comments on Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology:<\/p>\n
We agree with the dispensationalist view of the literal fulfillment of God\u2019s promises to Israel, including the Messiah\u2019s 1,000 year reign on earth. We find it misleading, however, to speak of the Old Testament period as the dispensation of law and to contrast it with the present age as an age of grace. We certainly agree that there is a distinction between the Mosaic covenantal government and the New Covenant. Both, however, are covenants of grace, even though the Mosaic (as a national constitution) is much more concerned with judicial matters. We most not confuse the Mosaic Covenant as understood by its later Judaic interpretation as a system of works-righteousness. God never sought to convey, under any age, any concept other than that of salvation by grace through faith.<\/p>\n
We might speak of the Mosaic dispensation with its system of Temple and sacrifice as a means of grace anticipating Yeshua, and contrast it with the New Covenant in Yeshua which is our primary and sole means of entrance into God\u2019s presence. Salvation is always offered by grace in Yeshua whether explicitly as in the New Covenant Scriptures or implicitly, by anticipation in the sacrificial system. We agree with the dispensationalists that each covenant should be seen as distinctive, even if intertwined with and anticipating others.<\/p>\n
Contrary to some dispensationalists, Messianic Jews do not see a complete distinction between redeemed Israel and the Church; rather, we see redeemed Israel as a distinct part of the universal people of God from all ages.\u2026<\/p>\n
We have great respect for the truths discovered by both dispensational and covenant theologians. We believe, however, that Messianic Judaism offers the opportunity of a fresh perspective which is more comprehensive than either and maintains the best discoveries of both.<\/p>\n
Juster objects to the distinction that Dispensationalists make between the periods of law and grace, but makes no effort to deal with the passages of Scripture which contain just such a distinction as John 1:17:<\/p>\n
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
And again in Romans 6:14:<\/p>\n
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.<\/p>\n
If one claims to write a \u201ccomprehensive theology of Messianic Judaism\u201d it is not enough to make such assertions or rejections of viewpoints. A theologian must interact with the evidence and prove or disprove a contention exegetically. This Juster does not do.
\nHe also repeats the same misconceptions of Dispensationalism that Covenant Theology does. He misinterprets the dispensational view to mean that there was no grace under the law or no law under grace and insists that the Mosaic Covenant is \u201ca covenant of grace.\u201d One must ignore the writings of Dispensationalists to come to such a faulty conclusion. Dr. Charles Ryrie has written on the subject of grace under law and so have other Dispensationalists. He also implies that Dispensationalists believe in more than one way of salvation by stating, \u201cGod never sought to convey, under any age, any concept other than that of salvation by grace through faith.\u201d This charge has already been shown to be a fallacy (chapters IX and X).
\nJuster later states that \u201cMessianic Jews do not see a complete distinction between Israel and the Church \u2026\u201d The point itself has already been discussed (chapters IX and X). Again, the thing to note is that the way Juster phrases his statements, he assumes to speak for all Messianic Jews and implies all Messianic Jews believe the way Juster states. This is simply not the case since a great number of Messianic Jews are dispensational. The last paragraph implies that Messianic Judaism is neither dispensational nor Covenant Theology, but is a third distinct entity. Again, however, the movement is hardly that monolithic.
\nThe second chapter is \u201cIsrael\u2019s Call And The New Testament.\u201d Briefly touching on Matthew 5:17\u201319 Juster states:<\/p>\n
We are still looking for those who will take with utter seriousness the background statement for Yeshua\u2019s teaching in Matthew 5, that is verses 17\u201319, (parallel is in Luke 16:16\u201317), \u2026<\/p>\n
Though it seems incredible, some have actually read this passage ignoring v. 19 and have said that \u201cfulfill\u201d means to do away with because we now just have to obey the Spirit.<\/p>\n
Juster uses verse 19 (\u201cthese least commandments\u201d) to prove that \u201cfulfill\u201d cannot mean \u201cto do away with.\u201d However, as already shown, Juster himself believes a great part of the Law of Moses has been done away with. Furthermore, \u201cthese least commandments\u201d cannot be limited to the moral ones or the ones related to Jewish identity, but must include all 613.
\nLater in the chapter, while discussing the decision of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, Juster states:<\/p>\n
As for gentile believers, they are given the direction to \u201cabstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood\u201d (Acts 15:29). We recognize here one of the historic Jewish positions: A gentile who is to be accepted as righteous must follow the Noahic Covenant. That covenant (in Genesis 9), universal for all mankind, was interpreted as forbidding idolatry, immorality and the eating of blood. Hence, James is affirming the fact that gentiles can be in Messiah without becoming Jews and are spiritually one with the community of faith. Yet those basic Noahic stipulations would be certainly followed by anyone in the Messiah. Hence, they affirmed the basic moral dimensions of the Law as universally applicable as well as the sanctity of blood.<\/p>\n
The fact that Gentile believers were asked to abstain from certain things found in the Noahic Covenant causes Juster to conclude that the apostles \u201caffirmed the basic moral dimensions of the law as universally applicable \u2026\u201d However, the Noahic Covenant is not part of the Law of Moses and so it is not evidence of the continuity of the law. Furthermore, what James declared was not an absolute rule of life for Gentile believers since Paul later allowed the eating of meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8\u20139). The purpose was to keep peace between Jewish and Gentile believers.
\nThe chapter closes with a discussion of Paul\u2019s actions in Acts 21 where he took a vow to prove that he did not teach Jews not to circumcise. Juster then concludes:<\/p>\n
The conclusion of this chapter on the Book of Acts is clearly to support the thesis of this book as a whole, namely that Jews under the New Covenant are still called to maintain their historic national identity as part of Israel. Being part of the universal body does not remove the specific expression of that salvation in a way that befits the call to be a part of the nation of Israel in its distinctive task of witness. Many believers have diverse calls to different nations and cultures. The call to Israel is valid.<\/p>\n
In addition, we must express our belief that the apostles are our authorities in doctrine by their teaching and example.\u2026 if they\u2014including Paul\u2014maintained their Jewish practice and identity, that settles the issue for us. They did! Even Paul, the apostle to the gentiles as a Jew, maintained his practice and identity as did the disciples of the disciples, the Nazarenes.<\/p>\n
Based on what Jewish believers did in the land in first century Israel, Juster concludes that \u201cJews under the New Covenant are still called to maintain their historic national identity as part of Israel.\u201d However, it is always dangerous to try to formulate doctrine on the basis of an historical text since the conclusion drawn is somewhat subjective. The wiser way to develop doctrine is from a declarative statement of Scripture. Historical incidents can then be used to illustrate the doctrine. Acts 21 does tell us what the Jewish believers of the Jerusalem Church practiced but that is insufficient grounds to teach that it is, therefore, mandatory. If by \u201ccalled\u201d Juster means that it is permissible, he would be correct for that much can be derived from Acts 21 since their actions are nowhere condemned; but that is far from saying it is required. While it is true that many believers \u201chave diverse calls to different nations,\u201d this does not mean that every Italian believer is required to maintain an Italian culture or that Arab believers are required to maintain an Arab culture. True, the Apostles, with some modification, continued in a Jewish culture; but apostolic practice is not apostolic precept. Where there was apostolic precept, it was stated in a declarative mariner. The members of that same church also sold all their possessions and put the money into a common treasury which was distributed by the apostles (Acts 4:34\u201337). Juster does not make this a mandatory precept, though it was clearly early apostolic practice.
\nThe third chapter is entitled, \u201cPaul, Israel and the Law.\u201d Several times in this chapter (and elsewhere in the book), Juster falls back on 2 Timothy 3:16\u201317 pointing out that Paul said, \u201cAll scripture is given by inspiration of God\u201d to teach that the law is still in effect. However, that is not the issue. All Scripture is indeed inspired, but this by itself does not prove continuous validity in the sense of obligation. The sacrificial system as outlined in Leviticus was inspired of God, but not even Juster believes it has continuous validity. What Juster claims Paul taught about the Law is all true:<\/p>\n
Romans 3:31\u2014faith established the Law. \u201cDo we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.\u201d<\/p>\n
Romans 3:2 states that the Law is a gift of God.<\/p>\n
Romans 3:7 teaches that the Law defines what sin is, while Romans 6:1\u20132 says we are not to continue in sin.<\/p>\n
Romans 7:12 states the [sic] the Law is holy. \u201cThe commandment is holy and just and good.\u201d<\/p>\n
Romans 7:14 states that the Law is spiritual; 7:16, that the Law is good.<\/p>\n
In the Law the great wisdom of God\u2019s standards is revealed. Only the Bible reveals an infinite, personal, ethical God!<\/p>\n
None of this actually proves it is all obligatory. However, when Juster draws the conclusion that, \u201cPaul also maintained the validity of the Law as uniquely related to Israel\u2019s continuing religious national identity and special witness as a people,\u201d he goes beyond the written text and cites no examples where this is true.
\nLater in the chapter Juster argues for the continuity of the Law:<\/p>\n
Now, what is the relationship of the Law to all of this? First, we no longer turn to the Law seeking to find intrinsic righteousness. To the whole legalistic preoccupation with the Law we have died in the Messiah. Paul gives the example of a woman whose spouse\u2019s death has freed her from the legal bondage of the marriage. We have died to the Law (Romans 7:4) in the sense that there is no more penalty to be paid or legal bondage. Our primary focus now is on the power of the Spirit and His love working in a life lived according to the law of love.<\/p>\n
If this love is real, however, then the Law makes its reappearance as a guide and teacher under the power of the Spirit. Without the power of the Spirit and the power of the atonement of Yeshua as our focus of dependence, our old nature shall reassert itself.\u2026<\/p>\n
Again, some take the phrase \u201cnot under law but under grace\u201d to imply that we have no relationship to \u201cLaw\u201d or Torah. This cannot be in the light of 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 and all the other verses we have previously recorded. The context makes this verse clear. The key word is under. The Law is no longer a tyrant of condemnation to us. We are not under the condemnation of the Law. We are not in bondage and fear, seeking to obey the Law through our own power as a way to please God, which is impossible.\u2026<\/p>\n
Let us then paraphrase: \u201cFor law-breaking will no longer have dominion over you since you are not under the condemnation of the law or a system of works righteousness, but under grace. What then? Are we to \u2018break the Law\u2019 because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!\u201d (Romans 6:14, 15) \u2026<\/p>\n
Often we hear Romans 10:4 quoted out of context as well. \u201cFor Messiah is the end of the law, that everyone who has faith may be justified.\u201d The word \u201cend\u201d here is \u201ctelos,\u201d not \u201cfinis.\u201d Telos includes the idea of goal or purpose rather than the finish of something.\u2026<\/p>\n
The \u201ctelos\u201d of the Law, however, can never mean doing away with the Law since the cardinal rule for interpreting Scripture is that the true meaning of a passage must always be understood in the light of the whole of the Bible! Scripture is a consistent revelation from the infinite personal God of the universe.<\/p>\n
Juster wants to believe that whenever Paul speaks about freedom from the law or not being under the law, he means only the law as a system of works-righteousness or the false rabbinic interpretations and additions to the Mosaic Law. While it certainly does have these connotations in certain passages, it is impossible for every passage to have this meaning unless it is forced. In the passage Juster cites, Romans 7:4, the widow is not merely freed \u201cfrom the legal bondage of the marriage,\u201d she is freed from that husband altogether, no longer needing to obey him, but free to marry another and obey her new husband. The believer is free from the Law of Moses itself, not merely from the penalty of the law. Juster states that \u201cthe law makes its reappearance as a guide and teacher under the power of the Spirit\u201d and this is a valid use of the law up to a point. That point is superseded when one insists that it is a rule of life today, especially for the Jewish believer.
\nAs for Romans 6:14, Juster denies that the passage implies that the law has \u201cno relationship\u201d to us today on the basis of 2 Timothy 3:16\u201317. However, that is not the issue because no one, including Dispensationalists, believes that the law has nothing to teach us today. The real issue is whether it is an obligatory rule of life today. It should again be noted that Juster approached the passage with his theological bias. The contrast is between being \u201cunder law\u201d or \u201cunder grace.\u201d You are either under one or the other, but not both. Juster defines \u201cunder law\u201d to only mean that we \u201care not under the condemnation of the Law\u201d and so the law \u201cis no longer a tyrant of condemnation to us.\u201d Yet neither the verse nor the context can give that meaning to \u201cunder.\u201d While all that is true, it is true because other passages teach it. Furthermore, the reason we are not under the condemnation of the law is because we are not under the law and we cannot be held accountable for that which does not apply to us. Juster\u2019s paraphrase only presupposes his theology because \u201csin\u201d cannot be defined only as \u201claw-breaking.\u201d There is much more to sin than that. Furthermore, if \u201cunder law\u201d means only the \u201ccondemnation of the Law\u201d then what does \u201cunder grace\u201d mean? Logically, it would then have to mean that we are under the condemnation of grace! Juster does not pursue his interpretation to its logical conclusion and his paraphrase paraphrases \u201cunder law,\u201d but does not paraphrase \u201cunder grace.\u201d The context however simply means that one operates either \u201cunder law\u201d or \u201cunder grace,\u201d that is, either in the sphere of the law or in the sphere of grace. Either the law is our rule of life or grace is our rule of life. It is that simple. This verse becomes complicated only when one tries to get around the obvious.
\nAs for Romans 10:4, Juster resorts to dogmatism while ignoring the lexicons in the process, lexicons which do not have a dispensational bias. He states that the Greek word for \u201cend\u201d is telos, not finis. It is hard to believe that Juster is serious here. His statement implies that if Paul wanted to say that the law has come to an end, Paul would not have said telos, but finis. However, the word finis is Latin and not Greek and the epistle was written in Greek and not Latin. If Paul wanted to say that the Law of Moses has come to an end, telos would be the right word to use. Yet Juster claims that telos does not mean \u201cthe finish of something\u201d but \u201cgoal\u201d or \u201cpurpose.\u201d That telos can mean \u201cgoal\u201d is not the issue. To claim it does not mean \u201cfinish\u201d is dogmatism and ignores what every Greek lexicon teaches. For example, Thayer gives the primary meaning of telos as:<\/p>\n
\u2026 end, i.e. termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be, \u2026 in the Scriptures also of a temporal end; \u2026 Christ has brought the law to an end \u2026<\/p>\n
Not only does Thayer give \u201ctermination\u201d as the primary meaning of telos, but he includes Romans 10:4 as belonging to that category of usage. Nor is \u201cgoal\u201d listed as a secondary or even a third in priority of usage; it is fourth down the list.
\nArndt and Gingrich give the primary meaning of the verbal form as \u201cbring to an end, finish, complete.\u201d The nominal telos is given the primary meaning of: \u201cend \u2026 in the sense termination, cessation. They, too, list Romans 10:4 in this category and list the meaning of \u201cgoal\u201d as being third down the list.
\nIs there any good or contextual reason to ignore the primary usage of telos in favor of a third or fourth usage? Only if one\u2019s theology requires it for Romans 10:4 does not demand it and the primary meaning makes good sense.
\nJuster\u2019s claim that \u201cthe \u2018telos\u2019 of the Law \u2026 can never mean doing away with the Law\u201d is a very untrue overstatement. Yes, \u201cthe true meaning of a passage must always be understood in the light of the whole of the Bible!\u201d and, taken that way, it does teach that the Law of Moses is no longer the rule of life today. That is the clear teaching of the New Testament if the passages are allowed to mean what they say without forcing a preconceived theology on them.
\nThe chapter ends with a short discussion on Galatians 6:16:<\/p>\n
Enough has been said to establish our view that calling the Church \u201cspiritual Israel\u201d is not biblical terminology. \u201cCommonwealth Israel\u201d would be a more accurate term (see Ephesians 2:12, R.S.V.). It reflects that gentiles have been grafted in but do not replace Israel proper. Yet they have become part of the commonwealth under the Messiah\u2019s rule.<\/p>\n
On the issue of the Church as the new or spiritual Israel, Juster sounds like a Dispensationalist, though he does see Gentile believers as coming into the Commonwealth of Israel. However, the Ephesians passage does not actually state this. Rather, believers from the Commonwealth of Israel and believers from among the Gentiles comprise the one new man, or the Church.
\nThe fourth chapter is entitled, \u201cMessianic Judaism\u2014Difficult Passages.\u201d This would appear to be a crucial chapter and one would expect that a book that claims to be a \u201ccomprehensive theology of Messianic Judaism\u201d would now try to give an exegetical defense of its position, especially concerning the perpetuity of the Law of Moses as a rule of life\u2014but he does not. He totally ignores Galatians 3:19\u20134:7 and Hebrews 7:11\u201318, among others. Even passages he does deal with, such as Ephesians 2:14, are not adequately explained. Discussing 1 Corinthians 9:19\u201321, Juster comments:<\/p>\n
We should first note that Paul here establishes a valid principle for sharing the Good News. That is, we are to have a loving indentification [sic] with those whom we seek to win. Clearly, the Messianic Jew is heartened by the clear statement that one may practice the Law, \u201cI become as one under the law.\u201d One reason for the practice of the heritage, but certainly not the sole reason, is loving identification with those we seek to win. Two other phrases bring various interpretations: \u201cthough not being myself under the law\u201d\u2014by some is taken to mean that the Mosaic revelation with its standards and practices no longer has any meaning to the life of the believer. Rather, the believer is now under the \u201claw of Christ,\u201d not the Law of Moses. The \u201claw of Christ\u201d is variously explained as loving God and our neighbor or as all of the New Testament commands.<\/p>\n
However, there are problems with this view. First, the command to love God and our neighbor (in Mark 12 and the other Gospels) is a quotation from Torah. Some say that when the New Testament quotes Torah, it becomes part of the \u201claw of Christ\u201d but otherwise has no force over us. This view is certainly \u201cforced.\u201d When the New Testament quotes Torah, it does so because it is Scripture. This settles the issue.\u2026<\/p>\n
The author believes that the phrase \u201claw of Christ\u201d is a synonym for \u201claw of the Spirit\u201d found in Romans 8:1. When we are in the Spirit, we are no longer under the Law as a fearful taskmaster, hoping to gain eternal life by our works.\u2026<\/p>\n
The \u201claw of Christ\u201d does not replace Torah, but is a principle of approach to all of Scripture in the power of the atonement and the Spirit. This is the meaning of not to be under the Law as a system of righteousness. This passage is perfectly exemplified by Paul\u2019s life and practice in the Book of Acts.<\/p>\n
Of special significance is the fact that the Apostle to the Gentiles, because of his Jewish identity, never ceased to care for his people and his heritage. Though called to Gentile ministry, he lived as a Jew. If this be the case, how can Jewish followers of Yeshua, who believe themselves called to Israel, live in ways that befit non-Jews? We do not seek to bring anyone into bondage; all must be done in the Spirit. However, the example of all the apostles, even Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, properly causes us to believe that those who are negative to the Jewish biblical heritage have not heard the Spirit in regard to these questions.<\/p>\n
There is no question that one should identify with those whom he seeks to win (1 Cor. 9:20\u201321) and for this reason Paul did say that when he was with the Jews, he did live \u201cas one under the law.\u201d This is true identification. But to be as is not the same as actually being. Paul also adds that, theologically, he was not under the law. To those who were \u201cwithout law,\u201d Paul also became \u201cas without law.\u201d As simply as it could be stated, what Paul was saying is that he was under no obligation to keep the law, but was free to do so and chose to do so to identify with the Jewish people. Paul makes two clear statements about his relationship to the law. First, not being myself under the law, he was under no obligation to keep the law, but chose to live as under the law when in Jewish circles. He also chose to live as without law when in Gentile circles. Second, he claimed to be under law to Christ, which is here distinguished from the Law of Moses. Paul clearly states that he was not under one law, the Law of Moses, but he was under another law, the Law of Christ. This, Juster cannot live with. He phrases the view of the opposition in an unfair way for he describes them as believing that the Law of Moses \u201cno longer has any meaning to the life of the believer,\u201d but instead \u201cthe believer is now under the \u2018law of Christ,\u2019 not the law of Moses.\u201d It is true that Dispensationalists believe that we are not under the Law of Moses, but under the Law of Christ. However, they would not say that the law has no \u201cmeaning to the life of the believer\u201d for they do believe that one can learn many spiritual truths from the law. What they do believe is that the Law of Moses is no longer the rule of life for the believer. To describe it as having \u201cno meaning\u201d is an unfair caricature of this view.
\nJuster defends his position by stating that the reason the New Testament quotes the Old is \u201cbecause it is Scripture. This settles it for us.\u201d This is beside the point. Because the New Testament quotes the Law of Moses does not make it obligatory. The Book of Hebrews quotes heavily from Leviticus and other parts of the law, but this does not make the sacrificial system obligatory today. Juster again claims that not being under the law simply means \u201cwe are no longer under the Law as a fearful taskmaster,\u201d but, as before, this is not a conclusion based on exegesis, but based on a theological bias. Juster also states that the \u201c \u2018law of Christ\u2019 does not replace Torah \u2026\u201d If, however, the Law of Christ is the same as being \u201cunder grace\u201d then it does replace the Law of Moses for we are not under law, but under grace (Romans 6:14) and not being under law cannot simply mean the law \u201cas a system of righteousness,\u201d but also as a rule of life.
\nIn his closing statements, Juster points out that Paul kept his Jewish identity, and \u201cnever ceased to care for his people and his heritage\u201d and \u201clived as a Jew.\u201d This is all true, yet Paul himself did not claim that living as a Jew obligated a mandatory keeping of the law and stated plainly, though not being myself under the law. There is absolutely nothing in all of Paul\u2019s writings that can be construed that maintaining a Jewish identity required an obligatory keeping of the law. Paul himself stated in the passage that at times he became as one who lived without law, a phrase not explained by Juster. But Juster does feel this and claims that no Jewish believer should \u201clive in ways that befit non-Jews,\u201d whatever that might mean. Yet he claims that, \u201cWe do not seek to bring any man into bondage.\u201d If he insists that Jewish believers keep the Law of Moses, after all of Juster\u2019s re-adjustments of that law, then he does put Jewish believers into bondage requiring of them what the New Testament does not. It is not for Juster to decide what kind of lifestyle is not fitting for Jews. Juster himself will drive a car on the Sabbath. Is this befitting Jews? Who will decide? Biblically, each one should make his own decision on such an issue. If others make that decision for him, then it is both legalism and bondage.
\nJuster next discusses Ephesians 2:13\u201316:<\/p>\n
The wall of partition does not refer to a difference of practice and lifestyle by which Jews and non-Jews may be distinguished. It rather refers to practices which precluded table-fellowship between Jew and Gentile and produced hostility.<\/p>\n
\u2026 the wall has to do with acceptance and table fellowship which was such a crucial demonstration of acceptance. The rejection of fellowship implied that the other person was not spiritually acceptable. The wall of partition is not a wall of distinctions, but a wall of hostility as Ephesians 2:14 clearly states \u2026<\/p>\n
The commands and ordinances are not necessarily intrinsically Torah, but the oral extensions of these laws made Gentiles unclean and contact with Gentiles something to avoid. As well, it would abolish commands precluding a Jew worshiping in the most intimate way with a Gentile since the Gentile, in Yeshua, is no longer an idolatrous sinner, but has been cleansed by the cross. In the Messiah, a universal body of believers of Jew and Gentile is formed. This does not preclude a Jew\u2019s special calling\u2014for he is both part of the universal body and the nation of Israel. It does not preclude the instruction of Torah (2 Timothy 3:16\u201317).<\/p>\n
Juster is correct that the wall of partition \u201cdoes not refer to a difference of practice and lifestyle by which Jews and non-Jews may be distinguished\u201d and the \u201cwall of partition is not a wall of distinctions, but a wall of hostility \u2026\u201d However, there is nothing in the context to imply that the wall \u201crefers to practices which precluded table-fellowship between Jew and Gentile\u201d and that is not the issue Paul is dealing with in the context. The issue Paul does deal with is the fact that Gentile believers have become partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings. Paul defines the wall of partition as \u201cthe law of commandments contained in ordinances.\u201d If taken at face value, it refers to the Law of Moses and this wall has been broken down. This Juster cannot accept and so he must find a meaning other than the obvious and so claims that the \u201ccommands and ordinances are not necessarily intrinsically Torah, but the oral extensions of these laws \u2026\u201d There is nothing in the text or context to imply this and much to negate it. Actually, Paul is writing this epistle to Gentle believers and they would be familiar with the Law of Moses, but hardly with rabbinic oral traditions. When that was the issue, the next made that clear, as in Matthew 15:1\u20136 where the Oral Law is referred to as the tradition of the elders. There is nothing in the Ephesians text that implies that Paul only means \u201cthe oral extensions.\u201d Since Paul did not see a need to define what he meant by the law of commandments contained in ordinances, then it should be taken at its primary meaning, which is the Law of Moses. To view it any other way is to resort to an interpretation based on a theological presupposition rather than taking the text as it is written. The very terms commandments and ordinances are typical terminology describing the Law of Moses, not the Oral Law.
\nJuster is also correct that the breaking down of the middle wall of partition \u201cdoes not preclude a Jew\u2019s special calling\u201d nor does it \u201cpreclude the instruction of Torah.\u201d This is all true. However, this passage does preclude making the law the basis of \u201ca Jew\u2019s special calling\u201d and points to the Abrahamic Covenant as the basis for it. It also precludes making the Law of Moses the rule of life for the Jewish believer today.
\nThe next passage Juster deals with is Galatians 4:8\u201310:<\/p>\n
\u2026 \u201cYou observe days, and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I have labored over you in vain.\u201d<\/p>\n
The obvious conclusion drawn by the foe of Messianic Judaism is that Paul here is against anyone observing Jewish holidays. However, what were the special months and years referred to in Judaism? They are not found in Scripture, except for the seventh sabbatical year when slaves were freed and the land was given beneficial rest. Once again, the context of preceding verses is essential. According to what we know of the region of Galatia historically, Paul is writing to predominantly non-Jewish people.\u2026<\/p>\n
The full context has prompted many commentators to hold that Paul here is not speaking of Jewish biblical celebrations. There must have been another problem in Galatia, it is thought. This problem is acknowledged to be connected with astrology.\u2026<\/p>\n
Apparently, what Paul refers to is a drift into superstition connected to special years, days and seasons\u2014akin to astrology \u2026 Certainly, in the light of this background, this passage has nothing to say against Jewish people celebrating God\u2019s grace in their history through feasts of Israel.\u2026 Again, Paul\u2019s example in life shows the critics of Messianic Judaism to be misinterpreting this passage, ignoring not only the historical context, but the very words of the whole passage itself.<\/p>\n
Juster insists that to take the days and months and seasons and years as Jewish celebrations is to ignore the context. His one proof is stated in question form: \u201cWhat were the special months and years referred to in Judaism?\u201d The answer is simple. The years refers to the Sabbatical Years (which he mentions) and also the Year of Jubilee. The months are the New Moon observances which are monthly observances. There is nothing un-Jewish about that phrase. There is no good reason not to take them as Jewish observances. To this Juster objects because the \u201ccontext of preceding verses is essential\u201d and \u201cPaul is writing to predominantly non-Jewish people.\u201d That the Galatians were Gentiles is obvious from the context. This same context also makes clear that the Galatians were being pressured by Judaizers to submit to the Law of Moses and be circumcised as an act of submission to the law. This is a point that Juster himself makes elsewhere in his work. The Galatians were not in danger of going back into paganism but converting to Judaism and so be obliged to keep the whole law. The Law of Moses is clearly the context of Galatians and the days, months, seasons, and years are all related to the law and must be understood exactly that way. Nor is astrology the context of Galatians. The law is the topic preceding this passage (3:15\u20134:7) and the law is the topic following this passage (4:21\u201331). Juster accuses those who take the opposite view as \u201cmisinterpreting this passage, ignoring not only the historical context, but the very words of the whole passage itself.\u201d It is plain that it is Juster who ignores the context of the passage, which is clearly the Law of Moses and not paganism or astrology, and it is he who ignores the meaning of the very words of the text and therefore concludes with a misinterpretation.
\nJuster is correct that \u201cthis passage has nothing to say against Jewish people celebrating God\u2019s grace in their history through feasts of Israel.\u201d However, his attempt to prove this point by ignoring or misinterpreting the context of this passage is not the way to do it.
\nJuster also discusses in a limited way the Book of Hebrews and makes the following comment:<\/p>\n
The essence of argument of the book is to not place our hopes in ritual or in a purified human priesthood because in Yeshua we have a better sacrifice, a better priesthood and a better Covenant. There is no statement to the effect that we have a better Law, for, as we have seen, the New Covenant promise is to write God\u2019s Law, statutes, and ordinances upon our hearts (Ezekiel 36:27). Further attention to the Book of Hebrews shows that what is referred to as being \u201cobsolete\u201d is the whole Temple-priestly, sacrificial system. Indeed the word obsolete is literally in \u201cprocess of vanishing\u201d in the original.\u2026<\/p>\n
The writer to the Hebrews emphasizes that the Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is essentially connected to this system\u2014which is vanishing. The New Covenant replaces this Covenant because of the weaknesses inherent in that old system which was given only for a time to point to the sacrificial-priestly work of Yeshua.<\/p>\n
We have stated clearly that we believe the Abrahamic Covenant with Israel is still in effect (Romans 11:29). We have also argued that the Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is no longer in full effect and that God has sovereignly removed the possibility of following this Covenant by allowing the Temple to be destroyed. Hence, as a Covenant by which we gain entrance into the presence of God, this Covenant is superseded. Note that the writer of Hebrews is clearly referring to the Mosaic Covenant and emphasizing its priestly sacrificial dimensions when he states that it, as a Covenant, is vanishing (see all of Chapter 8).\u2026<\/p>\n
This does not mean that the Mosaic writings are not Scripture, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (see 2 Timothy 3:16). Nor does it mean that these documents (Torah) cannot give guidance to a Jewish calling and identity which transcends the sacrificial-priestly system. The feasts, for example, are the national celebrations of Israel and exist because of God\u2019s promise to make of Abraham a great nation. They celebrate God\u2019s acts of grace to Israel. Although recorded in Mosaic writings, they are essentially connected to the Abrahamic Covenant, a Covenant of faith and promise still in effect. Nowhere does Hebrews even hint that the writer is opposed to the celebration of God\u2019s faithfulness in Jewish history when Yeshua\u2014not the sacrifices\u2014is the center of every feast.<\/p>\n
The Book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been done away and this Juster admits, but he claims that Hebrews never says that there is a \u201cnew law.\u201d However, the Mosaic Covenant contained the Mosaic Law and so to do away with the covenant is to do away with the law. Juster admits that the whole Levitical sacrificial system has been done away with. It is impossible to conclude that the sacrificial system is part of the Mosaic Covenant and not part of the Mosaic Law. Again, it is Impossible to do away with the Mosaic Covenant without doing away with the Mosaic Law at the same time. There is no need for Hebrews to talk about a new law for a new covenant is sufficient to cover this. If it is true that the \u201cNew Covenant replaces this Covenant,\u201d then it also replaces the Law of Moses. If \u201cthe Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is no longer in full effect,\u201d neither is the Law of Moses. If the Mosaic \u201cCovenant is superseded,\u201d so is the Law of Moses. Juster is correct that this \u201cdoes not mean that the Mosaic writings are not Scripture\u201d or that they do not \u201cgive guidance to a Jewish calling and identity.\u201d However, just as the sacrificial system is profitable for teaching, but not a mandatory practice, so is the rest of the Law of Moses. There is no need or biblical warrant to make a part of the law mandatory for Jewish believers to prove their loyalty to their Jewishness. To claim that the feasts are mandatory on the basis that \u201cthey are essentially connected to the Abrahamic Covenant\u201d though \u201crecorded in Mosaic writings\u201d is to stretch the text well beyond any proper exegesis or valid hermeneutics.
\nJuster\u2019s attempt to make a distinction between the Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses comes up again in his treatment of 2 Corinthians 3:7\u201318:<\/p>\n
Here a contrast is made between the New and Old Covenants. We should note that the references contrasting the New Covenant relate not to the Tenach or the Old Covenant Scriptures as a whole, nor even the Torah (Genesis\u2014Deuteronomy), but only the Covenant which Moses received from God. There is no contrast with the Abrahamic Covenant, for example, in Genesis 12\u201317. Of this Mosaic Covenant received from Sinai we read these descriptive words: \u201cThe written code kills,\u201d \u201cthe dispensation of death,\u201d \u201cdispensation of condemnation.\u201d In contrast the New Covenant is called the \u201cdispensation of the spirit\u201d and the \u201cdispensation of righteousness.\u201d Indeed, the New Covenant is compared to the old as one which has greater splendor and permanence while the old is fading away.\u2026<\/p>\n
This passage gives the solution to false interpretations which despise Torah. When Paul called the Mosaic Covenant the dispensation of death, it was not because of its inherent nature. It was rather because of what people made of the Torah by their approach to it. Because humans are sinful, they approached Torah as a system of works-righteousness and falsely sought to earn God\u2019s favor by their own merits.\u2026<\/p>\n
The Mosaic Covenant of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy was glorious. However, the New Covenant\u2014which outstrips it in power\u2014has much greater glory!\u2026<\/p>\n
The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic as the way of entrance into the presence of God and providing a new way of approach to God by the sacrifice of Yeshua, which replaces the sacrifices of the Mosaic revelation central to it.\u2026 It does not provide a new Law, but rather the power to do the Law in Him.\u2026<\/p>\n
Nothing in this passage, however, removes the gift and call of God to Jewish followers of Yeshua, which Paul calls (in Romans 11:29) \u201cirrevocable.\u201d The apostles\u2019 example in maintaining their heritage is clear. Some years after this passage was written, Paul testified that he lived in observance of the Laws and customs (Acts 27). He was not contradicting his own writing. The call of a Jew to the purposes of Israel is a result of God\u2019s everlasting covenant with Abraham. Jewish national practices rooted in Torah primarily celebrate the fulfillment by God of those promises. In every practice we see Yeshua\u2019s meaning and light over all.<\/p>\n
Juster admits that Paul has the Mosaic Covenant in mind, but denies that Paul has the law in view. However, it is impossible to separate the two. If the Mosaic Covenant is fading away, so is the law. The way Paul describes the Mosaic Covenant would also be true of the Mosaic Law: a dispensation of death and a dispensation of condemnation. Furthermore, the passage focuses on the Ten Commandments which no one denies, not even Juster, are part of the Law of Moses. The descriptions Paul gave are descriptions of the Law of Moses itself and not merely \u201cwhat people made of the Torah by their approach to it\u201d which was \u201cas a system of works righteousness,\u201d a notion that must be read into the text for it cannot be exegetically derived. The Law of Moses was a dispensation of death and condemnation because of man\u2019s inability to keep it, not because of man\u2019s approach to it. Juster is trying hard to do the exegetically impossible: to prove that the \u201cNew Covenant replaces the Mosaic\u201d without at the same time replacing the law. Juster admits that the New Covenant \u201creplaces the sacrifices of the Mosaic revelation central to it,\u201d but claims that it did \u201cnot provide a new Law.\u201d It did provide a new law: the Law of Christ.
\nJuster is again correct that nothing in this passage \u201cremoves the gift and the call of God to Jewish followers of Yeshua,\u201d but it does remove the Law of Moses as being part of it. It is the Abrahamic Covenant that is the basis and although Juster tries hard to connect the feasts of Israel with that covenant, it is exegetically impossible. It is sufficient to say that the Jewish believer is free to observe \u201cJewish national practices rooted in the Torah\u201d but not required to do so.
\nWhen Juster discusses Mark 7:19 (all foods are clean), he makes the following strained argument:<\/p>\n
Yeshua did not directly teach at this time that the food laws or the Biblical heritage of Jews was then at an end. Indeed the statement, \u201cJesus declared all foods clean\u201d may be a scribal addition, as noted in English versions by brackets. We cannot be sure that it comes from Mark himself. Let us assume that it does. If so, it does not say, as often misquoted, that \u201call things are clean\u201d but that all foods are clean. A \u201cfood\u201d would be defined as that which was listed as acceptable in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy. Hence the passage may only mean that foods not ritually treated according to the non-biblical Pharisaic tradition are yet acceptable for eating. When we turn to the parallel of Matthew 15, this becomes almost certain\u2014for Yeshua there concludes, \u201cEating with unwashed hands does not make a man unclean.\u201d<\/p>\n
The issue clearly is the clean and unclean nature of foods in regard to ceremonial washing. Pork would not be considered a food.\u2026<\/p>\n
However we may interpret the above Scripture, an application of the biblical kosher laws is not determinable on the basis of this passage alone. The passage gives no weight to a generalized conclusion that all celebrations of the Jewish biblical heritage are now to be eliminated.<\/p>\n
To suggest that the phrase is \u201ca scribal addition\u201d and may not be originally what Mark wrote has no textual support. The reason for the brackets is to point out that the phrase is not a quotation of what Jesus said, but Mark\u2019s own editorial comment.
\nTo claim that the word \u201cfood\u201d is only applicable to the kosher foods of Leviticus 11 and not to unkosher animals is incredible and not validated by any word study of the term. Juster obviously feels that the dietary code is still mandatory and so must find a way around this text by limiting the term \u201cfood\u201d to refer to kosher food only. What is declared clean only refers to what Pharisaic tradition declared unclean and has nothing to do with the food of Leviticus 11! However, this is an unlikely view. If would have been more defensible if it was found in Matthew\u2019s parallel account because he did write to Jews. Mark wrote to Romans who would not have been familiar with such fine distinctions and would have taken Mark\u2019s comment to be a statement concerning food in general.
\nJuster is correct when he claims that this \u201cpassage gives no weight to a generalized conclusion that all celebrations of the Jewish biblical heritage are now to be eliminated.\u201d However, this passage does make it clear that the dietary code is optional and not mandatory.
\nFinally, in discussing Colossians 2:16\u201323, Juster uses a similar approach as he did with Galatians 4:8\u201310:<\/p>\n
This passage is somewhat obscured by the fact that we do not know the circumstances to which it was addressed. Some quote the passage, however, as proof against celebrating Jewish festivals. Yet, the passage is far more complex, for the situation evidently reflected not only those who were judgmental in regard to Jewish observances but who also worshipped angels (v. 18), \u201cpracticed asceticism\u201d in a harsh treatment of the body (v. 23), and were involved in superstitions of not touching or tasting. These superstitions involved participation in the \u201celemental spirits\u201d of the universe\u2014which are demons. All of this is called \u201cphilosophy and empty deceit according to the elemental spirits of the universe.\u201d But it is clearly not speaking about Biblical Judaism.\u2026<\/p>\n
Clearly, what is in mind is not the call of a Jew to maintain his celebration of God\u2019s gracious work in the history of Israel and the world. Rather, it is the imposition of such practices on non-Jews that is forbidden, as well as the whole quasi-magical superstition present at Colosse.<\/p>\n
Paul does not contradict his own practice, as recorded in Acts. The passage says nothing negative to a Jew who, in light of the whole of biblical history, senses a call of God\u2019s Spirit to remain part of his people and to celebrate God\u2019s faithfulness to Israel through the festivals which are now used to extol salvation in Yeshua.\u2026 So far as it is consistent with Scripture, the Messianic Jew will be involved in identification with Israel\u2014on every possible level.<\/p>\n
This passage is not as obscure as Juster would like to make it for the meaning is quite clear: let no one judge you concerning the practice of certain Jewish practices which include eating, drinking, observing the Sabbath, the New Moon or a religious festival. This is quite similar to the Galatians passage and Juster tries to treat it the same way. It clearly does teach that certain practices of the Law of Moses are no longer mandatory. Juster is correct that this passage teaches that it is forbidden to impose these practices on non-Jews. Juster is also correct that this passage does not forbid Jewish believers to practice these elements. It does forbid the imposing of these things on Jewish believers as well. What Juster is aiming for is that \u201cso far as it is consistent with Scripture, the Messianic Jew will be involved in identification with Israel\u2014on every possible level.\u201d Every Jewish believer has the freedom to do this, but it is up to every individual Jewish believer to decide for himself as to how many levels he will be involved and it is not for others to impose it on him.
\nThe fifth chapter is, \u201cSurvey of the History of Judaism and Christianity.\u201d Here, Juster tries to make a distinction between Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews which is simply not true:<\/p>\n
\u2026 What is the distinction between Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Christianity, which was the traditional designation for Jewish believers in Yeshua?<\/p>\n
Hebrew Christians, traditionally, have not emphasized the planting of Jewish congregations; but Messianic Jews have. Hebrew-Christianity, at times, saw Jewishness as merely an ethnic identity, whereas Messianic Judaism saw its Jewish life and identity as a continued call of God. Of course there are many exceptions for those who use either label. A total distinction cannot be drawn. In general, however, Messianic Judaism has emphasized the planting of Messianic Jewish congregations and fidelity to the Jewish biblical calling. The exact nature of this is still in process of outworking. Furthermore, Messianic Jews have tended not to use the \u201cChristian\u201d label because of its cultural sense\u2014not being Jewish (which is a Jewish understanding of the word)\u2014rather than its linguistic meaning, \u201cOne of the Messiah.\u201d<\/p>\n
The fallacy of this distinction has already been dealt with in chapter X.<\/p>\n
The sixth chapter is, \u201cThe Faith and Life of Messianic Jews.\u201d In a section subtitled \u201cSalvation and Jews Who Do Not Know Yeshua,\u201d Juster allows for the possibility of salvation apart from conscious faith in Yeshua:<\/p>\n
If Jewish people were granted fellowship with God and everlasting life in the Old Covenant period, why should it be precluded now? Let\u2019s say that a righteous Jew died an hour after the resurrection (or the gift of the Spirit at Shavuot or Pentecost, if you wish this to be the time of responsibility); would he be hell-bound then, but heaven-bound if only he had died an hour earlier? This is unthinkable, and indeed unscriptural. Scripture clearly teaches that lostness is a condition that results from rejecting the revelation of God that can be known.\u2026<\/p>\n
The time when people and individuals are responsible is when revelation is given; and this time is different for everyone. It is only when the Spirit-revealer is spurned that lostness ensues. The persecution of centuries has rendered the Old Testament the main source of revelation and response for most Jews.\u2026<\/p>\n
What of the exclusionary verses which were quoted? First, let us note that one can\u2019t reject something he or she has not been clearly offered. John 3:36 says the wrath of God abides on the one who rejects the Son. So also, 1 John 5:12, \u201cHe that has the Son has life, he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.\u201d Did the believing Jews of the Tenach in a spiritual sense have the Son even though he had not yet come? Most would say yes. Why not then Jews one hour after the resurrection, or one year, or one hundred years later?\u2026<\/p>\n
In a day when our ancestors looked for many believers from Roman oppression, Peter was able to say, \u201cthere is salvation in no one else.\u201d In other words, all saved people\u2014from Adam until the present\u2014are saved only in Yeshua. \u201cHe is the only name given under heaven among men by which we must be saved.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n
Peter was not only calling for an explicit response to Yeshua in Acts 4:12, but was teaching that all salvation has always been in Him.\u2026<\/p>\n
If a person still believes that a conscious, explicit response must be made for Yeshua before death, we would point to the possibility of further revelation even at the moment of death for those who have responded in faith to the revelation they have been given.<\/p>\n
In this segment, Juster clearly believes in the possibility of salvation apart from a conscious belief in the Messiahship of Jesus and, therefore, believes in more than one way of salvation. Many times he has stated that salvation is by grace through faith, but here he shows that the content of faith need not be the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Messiah.
\nPart of his defense for this proposition is that since \u201cJewish people were granted fellowship with God and everlasting life in the Old Covenant period, why should it be precluded now?\u201d The answer is that the coming of the Messiah did make some changes in the content of faith (1 Corinthians 15:1\u20134). Juster\u2019s example about the hour before and the hour after the resurrection is not relevant to the issue today. It is true that if one was regenerate before the cross he did not become unregenerate after the cross, but those who were regenerate did recognize the troth of the gospel when they heard it. That period of time was a transitional period between two dispensations. However, no one today is in that category since every one living today was born well after the cross.
\nAnother point of evidence Juster presents is that the \u201cScripture clearly teaches that lostness is a condition that results from rejecting the revelation of God that can be known.\u201d This is not found in Scripture and the passages he cites do not actually make that statement. If one is not lost until he actually rejects the revelation of God, then that would imply that a person is born in an unlost condition and remains unlost until he consciously rejects the revelation of God at which point he becomes lost. The Bible teaches otherwise: that all are born lost and because of that condition, reject the revelation of God. It is the wrath and condemnation of God that results from man\u2019s rejection of God\u2019s revelation and not lostness, as such. Also, to prove his point, he cites John 3:36, but misquotes the passage to read that \u201cthe wrath of God abides on one who rejects the Son\u201d and it is obvious \u201cthat one cannot reject something he or she has not been clearly offered.\u201d John 3:36 reads as follows:<\/p>\n
He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that the verse does not say \u201creject,\u201d but that a person is condemned because he did not believe in the Son. It is unbelief that condemns, and not active rejection. The reason for the unbelief is man\u2019s lost condition.
\nJuster interprets Peter\u2019s words in Acts 4:12 to mean only that \u201call saved people\u2014from Adam until the present\u2014are saved only in Yeshua,\u201d but this does not mean that the individual was conscious of this; that it is possible for a Jewish person to be saved today by grace through faith, but the content of that faith need not be Jesus, but could be only in the Abrahamic Covenant. What Juster does not spell out is exactly what in or about the Abrahamic Covenant one would have to believe in order to be saved. This is a very questionable interpretation of Acts 4:12 and what Peter is stating is that one must believe in Jesus to have salvation. Peter made this statement to Jewish leaders who knew who Jesus was. This is further evidenced by 1 Corinthians 15:1\u20134 where Paul in no uncertain terms states that for one to be saved he must believe that Jesus died for his sins, was buried, and rose again.
\nChapter seven is entitled, \u201cThe Life of Messianic Jews\u201d and under the subheading, \u201cWhat Does it Mean to be Jewish?\u201d Juster states:<\/p>\n
As stated throughout this book, God has called Israel to be a unique nation among the nations, a witness to His truth and faithfulness. As a nation they were given unique practices such as the practice of the Sabbath and the feasts, so that the people would be unified by the memory of what God had done in graciously establishing the nation. The nation would also then be unified in recognizing its unique purpose in showing forth the truth of the Scriptures and the faithfulness of God. The Biblical heritage of feast and festival and identity with the nation is crucialHowever, his attempt to prove this point by ignoring or misinterpreting the context of this passage is not the way to do it.
\nJuster also discusses in a limited way the Book of Hebrews and makes the following comment:<\/p>\n
The essence of argument of the book is to not place our hopes in ritual or in a purified human priesthood because in Yeshua we have a better sacrifice, a better priesthood and a better Covenant. There is no statement to the effect that we have a better Law, for, as we have seen, the New Covenant promise is to write God\u2019s Law, statutes, and ordinances upon our hearts (Ezekiel 36:27). Further attention to the Book of Hebrews shows that what is referred to as being \u201cobsolete\u201d is the whole Temple-priestly, sacrificial system. Indeed the word obsolete is literally in \u201cprocess of vanishing\u201d in the original.\u2026<\/p>\n
The writer to the Hebrews emphasizes that the Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is essentially connected to this system\u2014which is vanishing. The New Covenant replaces this Covenant because of the weaknesses inherent in that old system which was given only for a time to point to the sacrificial-priestly work of Yeshua.<\/p>\n
We have stated clearly that we believe the Abrahamic Covenant with Israel is still in effect (Romans 11:29). We have also argued that the Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is no longer in full effect and that God has sovereignly removed the possibility of following this Covenant by allowing the Temple to be destroyed. Hence, as a Covenant by which we gain entrance into the presence of God, this Covenant is superseded. Note that the writer of Hebrews is clearly referring to the Mosaic Covenant and emphasizing its priestly sacrificial dimensions when he states that it, as a Covenant, is vanishing (see all of Chapter 8).\u2026<\/p>\n
This does not mean that the Mosaic writings are not Scripture, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (see 2 Timothy 3:16). Nor does it mean that these documents (Torah) cannot give guidance to a Jewish calling and identity which transcends the sacrificial-priestly system. The feasts, for example, are the national celebrations of Israel and exist because of God\u2019s promise to make of Abraham a great nation. They celebrate God\u2019s acts of grace to Israel. Although recorded in Mosaic writings, they are essentially connected to the Abrahamic Covenant, a Covenant of faith and promise still in effect. Nowhere does Hebrews even hint that the writer is opposed to the celebration of God\u2019s faithfulness in Jewish history when Yeshua\u2014not the sacrifices\u2014is the center of every feast.<\/p>\n
The Book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been done away and this Juster admits, but he claims that Hebrews never says that there is a \u201cnew law.\u201d However, the Mosaic Covenant contained the Mosaic Law and so to do away with the covenant is to do away with the law. Juster admits that the whole Levitical sacrificial system has been done away with. It is impossible to conclude that the sacrificial system is part of the Mosaic Covenant and not part of the Mosaic Law. Again, it is Impossible to do away with the Mosaic Covenant without doing away with the Mosaic Law at the same time. There is no need for Hebrews to talk about a new law for a new covenant is sufficient to cover this. If it is true that the \u201cNew Covenant replaces this Covenant,\u201d then it also replaces the Law of Moses. If \u201cthe Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is no longer in full effect,\u201d neither is the Law of Moses. If the Mosaic \u201cCovenant is superseded,\u201d so is the Law of Moses. Juster is correct that this \u201cdoes not mean that the Mosaic writings are not Scripture\u201d or that they do not \u201cgive guidance to a Jewish calling and identity.\u201d However, just as the sacrificial system is profitable for teaching, but not a mandatory practice, so is the rest of the Law of Moses. There is no need or biblical warrant to make a part of the law mandatory for Jewish believers to prove their loyalty to their Jewishness. To claim that the feasts are mandatory on the basis that \u201cthey are essentially connected to the Abrahamic Covenant\u201d though \u201crecorded in Mosaic writings\u201d is to stretch the text well beyond any proper exegesis or valid hermeneutics.
\nJuster\u2019s attempt to make a distinction between the Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses comes up again in his treatment of 2 Corinthians 3:7\u201318:<\/p>\n
Here a contrast is made between the New and Old Covenants. We should note that the references contrasting the New Covenant relate not to the Tenach or the Old Covenant Scriptures as a whole, nor even the Torah (Genesis\u2014Deuteronomy), but only the Covenant which Moses received from God. There is no contrast with the Abrahamic Covenant, for example, in Genesis 12\u201317. Of this Mosaic Covenant received from Sinai we read these descriptive words: \u201cThe written code kills,\u201d \u201cthe dispensation of death,\u201d \u201cdispensation of condemnation.\u201d In contrast the New Covenant is called the \u201cdispensation of the spirit\u201d and the \u201cdispensation of righteousness.\u201d Indeed, the New Covenant is compared to the old as one which has greater splendor and permanence while the old is fading away.\u2026<\/p>\n
This passage gives the solution to false interpretations which despise Torah. When Paul called the Mosaic Covenant the dispensation of death, it was not because of its inherent nature. It was rather because of what people made of the Torah by their approach to it. Because humans are sinful, they approached Torah as a system of works-righteousness and falsely sought to earn God\u2019s favor by their own merits.\u2026<\/p>\n
The Mosaic Covenant of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy was glorious. However, the New Covenant\u2014which outstrips it in power\u2014has much greater glory!\u2026<\/p>\n
The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic as the way of entrance into the presence of God and providing a new way of approach to God by the sacrifice of Yeshua, which replaces the sacrifices of the Mosaic revelation central to it.\u2026 It does not provide a new Law, but rather the power to do the Law in Him.\u2026<\/p>\n
Nothing in this passage, however, removes the gift and call of God to Jewish followers of Yeshua, which Paul calls (in Romans 11:29) \u201cirrevocable.\u201d The apostles\u2019 example in maintaining their heritage is clear. Some years after this passage was written, Paul testified that he lived in observance of the Laws and customs (Acts 27). He was not contradicting his own writing. The call of a Jew to the purposes of Israel is a result of God\u2019s everlasting covenant with Abraham. Jewish national practices rooted in Torah primarily celebrate the fulfillment by God of those promises. In every practice we see Yeshua\u2019s meaning and light over all.<\/p>\n
Juster admits that Paul has the Mosaic Covenant in mind, but denies that Paul has the law in view. However, it is impossible to separate the two. If the Mosaic Covenant is fading away, so is the law. The way Paul describes the Mosaic Covenant would also be true of the Mosaic Law: a dispensation of death and a dispensation of condemnation. Furthermore, the passage focuses on the Ten Commandments which no one denies, not even Juster, are part of the Law of Moses. The descriptions Paul gave are descriptions of the Law of Moses itself and not merely \u201cwhat people made of the Torah by their approach to it\u201d which was \u201cas a system of works righteousness,\u201d a notion that must be read into the text for it cannot be exegetically derived. The Law of Moses was a dispensation of death and condemnation because of man\u2019s inability to keep it, not because of man\u2019s approach to it. Juster is trying hard to do the exegetically impossible: to prove that the \u201cNew Covenant replaces the Mosaic\u201d without at the same time replacing the law. Juster admits that the New Covenant \u201creplaces the sacrifices of the Mosaic revelation central to it,\u201d but claims that it did \u201cnot provide a new Law.\u201d It did provide a new law: the Law of Christ.
\nJuster is again correct that nothing in this passage \u201cremoves the gift and the call of God to Jewish followers of Yeshua,\u201d but it does remove the Law of Moses as being part of it. It is the Abrahamic Covenant that is the basis and although Juster tries hard to connect the feasts of Israel with that covenant, it is exegetically impossible. It is sufficient to say that the Jewish believer is free to observe \u201cJewish national practices rooted in the Torah\u201d but not required to do so.
\nWhen Juster discusses Mark 7:19 (all foods are clean), he makes the following strained argument:<\/p>\n
Yeshua did not directly teach at this time that the food laws or the Biblical heritage of Jews was then at an end. Indeed the statement, \u201cJesus declared all foods clean\u201d may be a scribal addition, as noted in English versions by brackets. We cannot be sure that it comes from Mark himself. Let us assume that it does. If so, it does not say, as often misquoted, that \u201call things are clean\u201d but that all foods are clean. A \u201cfood\u201d would be defined as that which was listed as acceptable in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy. Hence the passage may only mean that foods not ritually treated according to the non-biblical Pharisaic tradition are yet acceptable for eating. When we turn to the parallel of Matthew 15, this becomes almost certain\u2014for Yeshua there concludes, \u201cEating with unwashed hands does not make a man unclean.\u201d<\/p>\n
The issue clearly is the clean and unclean nature of foods in regard to ceremonial washing. Pork would not be considered a food.\u2026<\/p>\n
However we may interpret the above Scripture, an application of the biblical kosher laws is not determinable on the basis of this passage alone. The passage gives no weight to a generalized conclusion that all celebrations of the Jewish biblical heritage are now to be eliminated.<\/p>\n
To suggest that the phrase is \u201ca scribal addition\u201d and may not be originally what Mark wrote has no textual support. The reason for the brackets is to point out that the phrase is not a quotation of what Jesus said, but Mark\u2019s own editorial comment.
\nTo claim that the word \u201cfood\u201d is only applicable to the kosher foods of Leviticus 11 and not to unkosher animals is incredible and not validated by any word study of the term. Juster obviously feels that the dietary code is still mandatory and so must find a way around this text by limiting the term \u201cfood\u201d to refer to kosher food only. What is declared clean only refers to what Pharisaic tradition declared unclean and has nothing to do with the food of Leviticus 11! However, this is an unlikely view. If would have been more defensible if it was found in Matthew\u2019s parallel account because he did write to Jews. Mark wrote to Romans who would not have been familiar with such fine distinctions and would have taken Mark\u2019s comment to be a statement concerning food in general.
\nJuster is correct when he claims that this \u201cpassage gives no weight to a generalized conclusion that all celebrations of the Jewish biblical heritage are now to be eliminated.\u201d However, this passage does make it clear that the dietary code is optional and not mandatory.
\nFinally, in discussing Colossians 2:16\u201323, Juster uses a similar approach as he did with Galatians 4:8\u201310:<\/p>\n
This passage is somewhat obscured by the fact that we do not know the circumstances to which it was addressed. Some quote the passage, however, as proof against celebrating Jewish festivals. Yet, the passage is far more complex, for the situation evidently reflected not only those who were judgmental in regard to Jewish observances but who also worshipped angels (v. 18), \u201cpracticed asceticism\u201d in a harsh treatment of the body (v. 23), and were involved in superstitions of not touching or tasting. These superstitions involved participation in the \u201celemental spirits\u201d of the universe\u2014which are demons. All of this is called \u201cphilosophy and empty deceit according to the elemental spirits of the universe.\u201d But it is clearly not speaking about Biblical Judaism.\u2026<\/p>\n
Clearly, what is in mind is not the call of a Jew to maintain his celebration of God\u2019s gracious work in the history of Israel and the world. Rather, it is the imposition of such practices on non-Jews that is forbidden, as well as the whole quasi-magical superstition present at Colosse.<\/p>\n
Paul does not contradict his own practice, as recorded in Acts. The passage says nothing negative to a Jew who, in light of the whole of biblical history, senses a call of God\u2019s Spirit to remain part of his people and to celebrate God\u2019s faithfulness to Israel through the festivals which are now used to extol salvation in Yeshua.\u2026 So far as it is consistent with Scripture, the Messianic Jew will be involved in identification with Israel\u2014on every possible level.<\/p>\n
This passage is not as obscure as Juster would like to make it for the meaning is quite clear: let no one judge you concerning the practice of certain Jewish practices which include eating, drinking, observing the Sabbath, the New Moon or a religious festival. This is quite similar to the Galatians passage and Juster tries to treat it the same way. It clearly does teach that certain practices of the Law of Moses are no longer mandatory. Juster is correct that this passage teaches that it is forbidden to impose these practices on non-Jews. Juster is also correct that this passage does not forbid Jewish believers to practice these elements. It does forbid the imposing of these things on Jewish believers as well. What Juster is aiming for is that \u201cso far as it is consistent with Scripture, the Messianic Jew will be involved in identification with Israel\u2014on every possible level.\u201d Every Jewish believer has the freedom to do this, but it is up to every individual Jewish believer to decide for himself as to how many levels he will be involved and it is not for others to impose it on him.
\nThe fifth chapter is, \u201cSurvey of the History of Judaism and Christianity.\u201d Here, Juster tries to make a distinction between Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews which is simply not true:<\/p>\n
\u2026 What is the distinction between Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Christianity, which was the traditional designation for Jewish believers in Yeshua?<\/p>\n
Hebrew Christians, traditionally, have not emphasized the planting of Jewish congregations; but Messianic Jews have. Hebrew-Christianity, at times, saw Jewishness as merely an ethnic identity, whereas Messianic Judaism saw its Jewish life and identity as a continued call of God. Of course there are many exceptions for those who use either label. A total distinction cannot be drawn. In general, however, Messianic Judaism has emphasized the planting of Messianic Jewish congregations and fidelity to the Jewish biblical calling. The exact nature of this is still in process of outworking. Furthermore, Messianic Jews have tended not to use the \u201cChristian\u201d label because of its cultural sense\u2014not being Jewish (which is a Jewish understanding of the word)\u2014rather than its linguistic meaning, \u201cOne of the Messiah.\u201d<\/p>\n
The fallacy of this distinction has already been dealt with in chapter X.<\/p>\n
The sixth chapter is, \u201cThe Faith and Life of Messianic Jews.\u201d In a section subtitled \u201cSalvation and Jews Who Do Not Know Yeshua,\u201d Juster allows for the possibility of salvation apart from conscious faith in Yeshua:<\/p>\n
If Jewish people were granted fellowship with God and everlasting life in the Old Covenant period, why should it be precluded now? Let\u2019s say that a righteous Jew died an hour after the resurrection (or the gift of the Spirit at Shavuot or Pentecost, if you wish this to be the time of responsibility); would he be hell-bound then, but heaven-bound if only he had died an hour earlier? This is unthinkable, and indeed unscriptural. Scripture clearly teaches that lostness is a condition that results from rejecting the revelation of God that can be known.\u2026<\/p>\n
The time when people and individuals are responsible is when revelation is given; and this time is different for everyone. It is only when the Spirit-revealer is spurned that lostness ensues. The persecution of centuries has rendered the Old Testament the main source of revelation and response for most Jews.\u2026<\/p>\n
What of the exclusionary verses which were quoted? First, let us note that one can\u2019t reject something he or she has not been clearly offered. John 3:36 says the wrath of God abides on the one who rejects the Son. So also, 1 John 5:12, \u201cHe that has the Son has life, he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.\u201d Did the believing Jews of the Tenach in a spiritual sense have the Son even though he had not yet come? Most would say yes. Why not then Jews one hour after the resurrection, or one year, or one hundred years later?\u2026<\/p>\n
In a day when our ancestors looked for many believers from Roman oppression, Peter was able to say, \u201cthere is salvation in no one else.\u201d In other words, all saved people\u2014from Adam until the present\u2014are saved only in Yeshua. \u201cHe is the only name given under heaven among men by which we must be saved.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n
Peter was not only calling for an explicit response to Yeshua in Acts 4:12, but was teaching that all salvation has always been in Him.\u2026<\/p>\n
If a person still believes that a conscious, explicit response must be made for Yeshua before death, we would point to the possibility of further revelation even at the moment of death for those who have responded in faith to the revelation they have been given.<\/p>\n
In this segment, Juster clearly believes in the possibility of salvation apart from a conscious belief in the Messiahship of Jesus and, therefore, believes in more than one way of salvation. Many times he has stated that salvation is by grace through faith, but here he shows that the content of faith need not be the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Messiah.
\nPart of his defense for this proposition is that since \u201cJewish people were granted fellowship with God and everlasting life in the Old Covenant period, why should it be precluded now?\u201d The answer is that the coming of the Messiah did make some changes in the content of faith (1 Corinthians 15:1\u20134). Juster\u2019s example about the hour before and the hour after the resurrection is not relevant to the issue today. It is true that if one was regenerate before the cross he did not become unregenerate after the cross, but those who were regenerate did recognize the troth of the gospel when they heard it. That period of time was a transitional period between two dispensations. However, no one today is in that category since every one living today was born well after the cross.
\nAnother point of evidence Juster presents is that the \u201cScripture clearly teaches that lostness is a condition that results from rejecting the revelation of God that can be known.\u201d This is not found in Scripture and the passages he cites do not actually make that statement. If one is not lost until he actually rejects the revelation of God, then that would imply that a person is born in an unlost condition and remains unlost until he consciously rejects the revelation of God at which point he becomes lost. The Bible teaches otherwise: that all are born lost and because of that condition, reject the revelation of God. It is the wrath and condemnation of God that results from man\u2019s rejection of God\u2019s revelation and not lostness, as such. Also, to prove his point, he cites John 3:36, but misquotes the passage to read that \u201cthe wrath of God abides on one who rejects the Son\u201d and it is obvious \u201cthat one cannot reject something he or she has not been clearly offered.\u201d John 3:36 reads as follows:<\/p>\n
He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that the verse does not say \u201creject,\u201d but that a person is condemned because he did not believe in the Son. It is unbelief that condemns, and not active rejection. The reason for the unbelief is man\u2019s lost condition.
\nJuster interprets Peter\u2019s words in Acts 4:12 to mean only that \u201call saved people\u2014from Adam until the present\u2014are saved only in Yeshua,\u201d but this does not mean that the individual was conscious of this; that it is possible for a Jewish person to be saved today by grace through faith, but the content of that faith need not be Jesus, but could be only in the Abrahamic Covenant. What Juster does not spell out is exactly what in or about the Abrahamic Covenant one would have to believe in order to be saved. This is a very questionable interpretation of Acts 4:12 and what Peter is stating is that one must believe in Jesus to have salvation. Peter made this statement to Jewish leaders who knew who Jesus was. This is further evidenced by 1 Corinthians 15:1\u20134 where Paul in no uncertain terms states that for one to be saved he must believe that Jesus died for his sins, was buried, and rose again.
\nChapter seven is entitled, \u201cThe Life of Messianic Jews\u201d and under the subheading, \u201cWhat Does it Mean to be Jewish?\u201d Juster states:<\/p>\n
As stated throughout this book, God has called Israel to be a unique nation among the nations, a witness to His truth and faithfulness. As a nation they were given unique practices such as the practice of the Sabbath and the feasts, so that the people would be unified by the memory of what God had done in graciously establishing the nation. The nation would also then be unified in recognizing its unique purpose in showing forth the truth of the Scriptures and the faithfulness of God. The Biblical heritage of feast and festival and identity with the nation is crucial.<\/p>\n
The full scope of being a loyal Jew thus includes involvement in the Jewish community and support for Israel. However, even more, it means the preservation of the very historic Biblical roots of her heritage which makes these involvements possible today. It includes Sabbath, the feasts, Hebrew language, unique tunes and sounds in worship, as well as Bible-based discerning appreciation of Jewish history, literature and wisdom. Not all will be able to as fully give themselves to the whole of the Jewish heritage, but as loyal Jews, we should do so to the extent that we can. God has preserved Israel; He has done so through the element of the Jewish heritage.<\/p>\n
There is nothing particularly wrong with what Juster states and, in fact, it is mostly good. If all of this is voluntary and not imposed, it is totally acceptable. The problem area concerns judging the Jewish loyalties of Jewish believers based on how far they choose to practice these things.<\/p>\n
The Sabbath is a central pivot of Jewish life. As taught by Yeshua, \u201cthe Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath\u201d (Mark 2:27). It was never meant to be a day of legalistic conformity. However, Sabbath is a day of crucial significance to Jewish identity. The principle of weekly rest, worship and renewal is one with universal significance. In this sense, the Sabbath principle is a spiritual and humanitarian guide for all peoples. Christians are free to incorporate this principle on Sunday or other days. The seventh day Sabbath for Israel is a special central sign of the Covenant between Israel and God. Hence, to abrogate the sign of the Covenant as a Jew is to cast doubt on whether we uphold the continuing covenant of God with Israel. Sabbath itself antedates Israel\u2019s existence and is a reflection of the creation order. However, Israel is given Sabbath as a memorial of God\u2019s gracious rescue from slavery as well as a memorial of creation and God\u2019s resting in the seventh period.<\/p>\n
Messianic Judaism looks to Yeshua, who proclaimed himself \u201cLord of the Sabbath\u201d (Mark 2:28), to gain a sense of direction for observance. The day is meant to be a break from the routine of work, whereby we may be renewed by worship, fellowship and rest. By this rest and renewal, Messianic Jews testify that God is Lord of creation and that man need not be subject to work as though the economic sphere of life has a tyrannical control over our lives. The one who is a person of faith and knows the \u201crest of faith\u201d in Yeshua, testifies to the world that God is gracious and kind and will provide for us by faith even if one-seventh of our lives is spent in freedom from providing for our own material needs.\u2026<\/p>\n
Outside of a Jewish context, the Apostle Paul allowed for freedom in regards to worship days. But he nowhere speaks against Jews who follow the Sabbath. He would not, however, allow a legalistic imposition of Sabbath on non-Jews. Our historical documents show that the Jewish believers of the first several centuries continued to practice Shabbat as part of their heritage and witness.\u2026<\/p>\n
How is it that Christendom adopted the \u201cfirst\u201d day as its day of worship? Some have held that the early believers gathered on Sunday morning to celebrate the resurrection and celebrated both the Sabbath and Sunday. However, it is said that the Church perceived that, under the New Covenant, the Sabbath had been abrogated and that Sunday was a proper replacement of the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
The most recent scholarship suggests that this explanation for the switch from Saturday to Sunday is mistaken. Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi has probably written the definitive work on all of the evidence involved.\u2026<\/p>\n
Messianic Jews must avoid a legalistic approach to Sabbath, where rules are imposed ad infinitum. However, if Sabbath is to be taken seriously, there are some basic principles which may be applied by our people:<\/p>\n
First, Sabbath should be a day of freedom from work, especially that work which is required for our economic and material security.\u2026<\/p>\n
Secondly, it is of spiritual value to mark the day off from other days by a special Friday evening meal, the lighting of candles and prayer.\u2026<\/p>\n
Sabbath is also an appropriate day to gather for worship and share the word exposited. It is a time as well for friends, fellowship and family.<\/p>\n
Much of what Juster states about the Sabbath has been dealt with earlier under \u201cIsrael Present\u201d (chapter X) and need not be repeated here. What is important to note is that Juster strongly feels that the observance of the Sabbath is mandatory today, that a good Messianic Jew would observe it and not to do so would question a Jewish believer\u2019s Jewish loyalties. He does believe that \u201cChristians are free to incorporate this principle on Sunday or other days.\u201d By \u201cChristians,\u201d Juster means Gentile Christians. This same freedom is not extended to Jewish believers, though obviously it would lead to two divisions of the Church: Jewish and Gentile, each with its own day of worship. Juster admits that Paul \u201callowed for freedom in regards to worship days\u201d but this was only \u201coutside of a Jewish context.\u201d It is true that Paul \u201cnowhere speaks against Jews who follow the Sabbath,\u201d but he never imposes it on them either. Concerning the switch from Saturday to Sunday, Juster relies uncritically on the work by Samuel Bacchiocchi. The latter author is a Seventh Day Adventist who is hardly objective on the issue and his work has been well refuted by the authors of From Sabbath to Lord\u2019s Day and so it is not as definitive as Juster claims.
\nAs to how the Sabbath should be observed, Juster makes three suggestions, only the first of which is from the Law of Moses in which the Sabbath is treated as a day of rest. The second (meal, candles, and prayer) and third (family and friends get together, corporate worship) are of non-biblical origin. This means that such observances are options and not mandatory and again, Rabbinic Judaism is not a criterion for Messianic Jews to determine what is mandatory and what is not.
\nThe rest of the chapter deals with various Jewish practices such as the feasts, tzitziot, tfillin, yarmulke or kippah, kosher and non-kosher foods, both from a biblical and rabbinic orientation. As long as these things are optional, there is no biblical problem though some of his exegesis, such as that of 1 Corinthians 11:2\u201316 is debatable. However, once they become mandatory, they have violated New Covenant teaching and a Jewish believer\u2019s freedom in the Messiah. The same can be said about the eighth chapter, \u201cExtra Biblical Practices,\u201d and the ninth chapter, \u201cJewish and Biblical Worship.\u201d
\nIn chapter ten, entitled, \u201cDangers To Be Faced,\u201d Juster states the following about legalism:<\/p>\n
This sense of \u201cmust\u201d produces a feeling of great restraint. Members of the Body who have a legalistic, critical bent (which is all too common among human beings) use conformity to a tradition as the basis for judging others. If a phrase is changed in a service, or a substitution made, or if a particular order is changed, there is a response of anger and intolerance. Others buckle under and conform. However, it will be with a diminished joy and a sense of feeling manipulated. Most Jewish people today are undesirous of a demand for regular conformity in all of the details of their life and worship. In addition, judgmentalism and rigid conformity requirements in life and worship destroy creativity. Where will there then be room for new prayers, songs, drama, and dance that God would desire in our midst?<\/p>\n
Worship material of value can be produced today as well as it was a thousand years ago. New material and style reflects our identity and expression today as Messianic Jews. It is also necessary. Ancient material roots us in our history.<\/p>\n
Love should be predominant in our midst. We should allow the Spirit of God to inspire one another toward the practices He lays on our hearts. It should be at God\u2019s pace, not by peer pressure. I personally may not eat shrimp, but if another Messianic Jew does, not thinking that the food lists have continuing validity today, I should not look at him with an eye of disapproval. We can share our leading in the Lord, but we must seek obedience or conformity only in clear Biblical directions. Legalism says \u201cmy way is the only right way,\u201d whether that way be modern or ancient. Legalism seeks to control others and cannot trust the Spirit to bring about God\u2019s desired ends. We must be on guard.<\/p>\n
This is a good warning. Juster would do well to apply it to some of his earlier chapters.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX II<\/p>\n
AN INTERCHANGE ON THE LAW OF MOSES AND HEBREW CHRISTIAN\/MESSIANIC JEWISH PRACTICE<\/p>\n
In August 1986, the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism held its Third International Consultation in Easneye, England. Daniel Juster presented a paper on \u201cThe Torah and Messianic Jewish Practice.\u201d This was followed by a response from this writer. Because of its relevance to the issues discussed here, both papers are presented in total.<\/p>\n
A. THE TORAH AND MESSIANIC JEWISH PRACTICE
\nby Daniel Juster<\/p>\n
PART ONE
\nINTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
Whether or not Messianic Jewish practice should be based on the Torah, and in what sense Torah is a locus for Jewish identity and practice is a source of no little controversy. Yet, having noted the controversy, it has been amazing to see how many leaders are yet calling for Jewish practice that is rooted nowhere else but in the Torah. This is true of people from many different persuasions. For example, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, perhaps the most noted dispensationalist theologian of Hebrew Christianity in the United States, argues for maintaining physical circumcision as rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, along with the celebration of the Jewish feasts. These practices are certainly rooted in Torah. Although Dr. Fruchtenbaum does not talk of Torah as prescriptive, yet he will talk of specific unique Jewish responsibilities for Jewish believers in Yeshua. Are these responsibilities rooted in Torah? We await his publication of Israelology in which he will present his outline and case for these responsibilities.
\nDr. Louis Goldberg of Moody Bible Institute, a moderate dispensationalist has written eloquently on this matter. Dr. Goldberg, as does Messianic Judaism in general, disassociates himself from any who would imply a salvific dimension to keeping commandments. Yet he is more than willing to speak of the moral principles of the law as having universal validity. This is the case with many new moderate dispensationalists. Dr. Goldberg also argues that the Torah, rightly applied for this dispensation, is still the foundation for or focus of Jewish identity.
\nNon-dispensationalists have also argued that the meaning of Jewish identity and lifestyle is rooted in the Torah. We should note some examples. Dr. James Hutchins, in his doctor\u2019s dissertation, The Case for Messianic Judaism, argued for the continued validity of the law, not only in its universal moral principles, but for giving direction for specifically Jewish living. Similar arguments are put forth by Dr. David Stern in many unpublished papers. The author himself has stated his agreement and perspective in several published writings whose arguments cannot be repeated here. Although some of us who have argued from a non-dispensationalist viewpoint have been called adherents of classical Covenant Theology, this is really an inadequate classification. My own experience leads me to affirm that most non-dispensational Messianic Jews cannot be so classed because of their disavowal of a spiritualizing approach to the Tenach. They hence affirm the literal fulfillment of prophetic promises to Israel. If we are to be classed at all with schools of Christian theology (which is of doubtful value), the writings of Dr. Walter Kaiser, called Promise Theology, might be a closer parallel. Daniel Fuller\u2019s recent Gospel and Law, Contrast or Continuum, is also helpful in this regard.
\nAlthough in this paper, of course, I shall tie Jewish practice based upon Torah to my own theological persuasions, it is worthwhile to take note of these amazing facts. Here we find writers coming from varied theological viewpoints arguing for the validity of Jewish practices. Certainly these practices, from circumcision to Passover, are rooted in Torah. Who could have predicted such twenty years ago? Despite our disagreements on the question of the rationale for Torah practices, our agreement for calling for such practices is an amazing fact. A further amazing fact is the proliferation of more or less indigenous congregations in Jewish communities worldwide. Not only is there a Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations in North America (of some fifty congregations), but mission organizations have gotten into the business of planting congregations geared to Jewish people. This includes older established missions such as the American Board of Missions to the Jews in the U.S.A. and the Church\u2019s Ministry among the Jews in Great Britain, as well as new missions such as Ariel Ministries and Jews for Jesus. What is amazing about congregations in North America, Great Britain, Israel and Australia is that they all practice varying measures of Jewish life and culture. Aspects of this cultural practice are rooted in Torah. How far we are from the view of David Baron that Jews must not celebrate the feasts and practice that which is rooted in the Torah because it would distort and take away from the Gospel! It was even argued that Jews alone of all cultures could not have an indigenous congregation.
\nOftentimes, our intuitive direction precedes an adequate theological rationale for what we are sensing. We cannot exhaustively either provide the rationale or the description of Torah-based practice for Messianic Jews. However, we will attempt to lay out what we believe are some significant points for developing such a rationale. We will attempt this by a number of theses.<\/p>\n
PART TWO
\nSEVEN THESES ON TORAH-BASED PRACTICES FOR MESSIANIC JEWS<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 1: God Has Not Done Away with His Law<\/p>\n
Any adequate approach to Messianic Jewish practice, indeed all Biblical Theology, needs to come to terms with the meaning of Torah. Aside from more radical forms of dispensationalism (as in classic Darbyite theology), Christian theology has generally held to the view that the Torah in its ethical teaching provides us with universally valid standards from God. This is in accord with Yeshua\u2019s own statement in Matthew 5:17\u201318. It is amazing how antinomians can interpret fulfillment as doing away with the Law despite these verses. Fulfillment here means to \u201cfill up the meaning of,\u201d or to bring to its highest meaning. It is exemplified by Yeshua\u2019s teaching on the Law in Matthew 5\u20137, and by the pattern of his life. Yet certainly the fact that God has not done away with his Torah has implications for Messianic Jewish life and practice. Is it only the ethical aspects of the Law that continue? Or are there other aspects that continue?<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 2: The New Covenant is Not Merely a Renewal of the Covenantal Material Given Through Moses<\/p>\n
The whole warp and woof of the New Covenant Scriptures demonstrate that through Yeshua, we enter into a new age. The new realities of this new age alter our relationship to the Mosaic Covenant and commandments. This alteration is not in God\u2019s basic ethical standards (Galatians 5:17\u201319) or in the gift and call of the Jewish people (Romans 11:28\u201329). These new realities are:
\n(1) The pouring out of the Spirit in fullness upon all who are willing with the Spirit\u2019s accompanying gracelets of power and giftedness.<\/p>\n
(2) The internalization of a motive that is in accordance with God\u2019s Torah described as the Law being written upon our hearts (Jeremiah 31:31ff).<\/p>\n
(3) The experience of our co-death and resurrection with Yeshua on the basis on his accomplished work (Romans 6, Galatians 2:20).<\/p>\n
(4) The acceptance of Gentiles into the community of faith by the New Covenant without requiring physical circumcision or specifically Jewish practices (Acts 9, 10, 15).<\/p>\n
These realities are so significant that we can no longer think of salvation as contingent upon or based upon external law keeping. This was never the purpose of the Law anyway. However, the New Covenant realities change our relation to the Law as a child to an adult (Galatians 3:23ff), from an external law to an internalized law (Jeremiah 31:31, Romans 10:5\u201310). Hence the old order of sacrifice and Temple is in the process of vanishing (Hebrews eight).<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 3: Fulfillment Does Not Eliminate the Presence of the Past<\/p>\n
Oscar Cullmann in Salvation History and Jacob Jocz argue well that much of Christian theology and practice misconstrued fulfillment in such a way that the practice of New Testament celebration was weak in its Old Testament content and reference. Cullmann himself argued that the whole of New Testament thinking is based upon concepts, meaning and events which can only be understood in the context of the Tenach. Hence, to properly understand and celebrate the meaning of fulfillment, there should be much greater content and reference to Old Testament content and meaning in New Covenant celebration.
\nGod did not spend two thousand years in cultural development in the history of Israel to provide a context for understanding the meaning of Yeshua only to do away with this context for understanding. This context needs to be present in our celebration of New Covenant meaning. Cullmann does not fully explain how this can be done. It is my view that this is a Messianic Jewish role especially. Through Passover celebration we understand the Passover Lamb. We do not forget the Exodus in remembering the resurrection, but we celebrate the death and resurrection of Yeshua in the context of the Passover-Exodus. Through Sabbath celebration we provide a living context for understanding and living out the meaning of life in trusting and resting in Him. None of this detracts from Yeshua but it brings out the meaning of Yeshua in greater fullness. All of salvation history is tied together, and Jewish life is a living illustration of salvation history. Messianic Jewish life is a living witness to all.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 4: The Dispensational Approach is Inadequate for a Biblical Messianic Jewish Theology<\/p>\n
The dispensational approach is inadequate in several key regards:<\/p>\n
(1) It posits two separate peoples of God with earthly and heavenly promises. Hence the Jewish believer in the Messiah is often seen as no longer part of God\u2019s purposes with Israel and its \u201cearthly promises.\u201d Is this Scriptural? When Scripture speaks of the relationship of Gentile believers to the believing Jews throughout history, it uses terms such as \u201cingrafted\u201d (Romans 11), \u201cbrought near to the covenants\u201d (Ephesians 2) and made part of the \u201ccommonwealth of Israel\u201d (Ephesians 2, RSV). Yet Scripture does still delineate a Jewish distinction. This is not, however, maintained by the concept that one is either a lost Jew, a lost Gentile or neither and part of the Church.<\/p>\n
(2) It opposes law to grace, making the Mosaic covenant the \u201cDispensation of Law\u201d. This distinction produces a theological ambivalence to the Mosaic writings in the heart of the Jewish believer who embraces this theology. Yet God never offered a covenant of law in the sense of an intended works-righteousness system. The Mosaic covenantal material was a covenant of grace which declared God\u2019s gracious act of salvation not based on Israel\u2019s merit, and called Israel to a moral, social and legal obedience as a response to this grace.<\/p>\n
(3) It leads to an ambivalence to Jewish life under the false conception that this would be \u201cmixing law and grace\u201d and \u201cgoing back under the \u2018Covenant of Law\u2019 \u201d.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 5: The Covenant Theology Approach is Inadequate for a Biblical Messianic Jewish Theology.<\/p>\n
Although Covenant Theology has rightly emphasized a high place for the Torah with regard to ethical standards, it left little place for Jewish life and practice because:<\/p>\n
(1) The Church had replaced Israel and was the new and true spiritual Israel.<\/p>\n
(2) There was a rigid distinction made between the moral and ceremonial law, the latter having been abolished. Jewish practices are eliminated as part of the ceremonial law.<\/p>\n
(3) There is a spiritualization of the Tenach seeking a deeper sense not intended by the human author. This spiritualization takes the promises given to Israel away from Israel and applies them to the Church. The return of the Jewish people to Israel is taken to refer to the gathering of the Church at the rapture. The promise of the land for Israel is spiritualized to speak of the inheritance of the Church in heaven. This style of interpretation is subjectivist! It leads to chaos in Biblical interpretation.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 6: The New Covenant Halakic Approach is the Proper Approach to Aid Us in Answering the Questions of the Relationship of Israel to the Church and Law to Grace and the Nature of Messianic Jewish Practice Based on Torah.<\/p>\n
What do we mean by the Halakic approach? Judaism has traditionally recognized that new situations required new applications of the Law. The new application leads to change in practice. This rabbinic interpretation and application is known as Halakah, the way to go. (We are not arguing that the rabbis made the right applications. Yeshua\u2019s conflict with the rabbis was in part based upon their misapplication of the Law, a false Halakah that contradicted the Scriptural Law.) All countries which have a system of morality and law must apply the law to new situations. Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:16\u201317 makes it clear that the whole Bible is relevant for \u201cdoctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.\u201d Paul was certainly thinking of the Torah and the Prophets, since the New Covenant Scriptures were hardly yet in existence! However, in the light of our second thesis, we have to ask how the Law applies in the radically new situation brought about by the death and resurrection of Yeshua, the outpouring of the Spirit, the writing of the Law upon the hearts of his followers, and the breaking open of the Covenants of redemption to include the Gentiles. How is each law relevant in the present situation.
\nThe Halakic approach recognizes the continuing validity of the Law under the New Covenant. However, because of the New Covenant order brought by Yeshua, our application of the Law will reflect what is appropriate under the New Covenant. Rather than seeing the Law as done away or segmenting the Law into rigid categories of ethical and ceremonial, we must first recognize that the whole Law had a spiritual and ethical purpose. As adults, however, with the internalized motive of the Spirit we can ask the question of the principle behind each law, the reason for it, or the spirit of the law (the law in heart intent or essence). This intent of the Law is discovered in studying the Torah in its original historical context and noting its application throughout the prophets and in the New Covenant Scriptures. This also requires creative thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. At times, rabbinic application will provide helpful natural extensions and applications of the Torah. At other times, rabbinic Halakah will be found to be seriously wrong. The Talmud is, for all its wisdom and insight, often a childish book in many regards. The legalistic mind is a childish, though often brilliant mind. Did Paul have this in mind in Galatians 3:23ff?
\nThere is already such New Testament precedent for New Covenant Halakah. We find that the grace available under the New Covenant stiffens the law against divorce and enjoins the high ideal of monogamous marriage found in Genesis 2. Paul\u2019s use of the Law in arguing for adequate provision for preachers of the good news is an example of Messianic Jewish Halakah. The principle of kindness in meeting the needs of laborers is found throughout the context of Leviticus 19 which speaks of \u201cnot muzzling the ox that treads out the wheat\u201d. How much more important is this principle of providing for the one who labors applicable to humans laborers! How much more does this apply to those who live by the gospel! (Many have noted the rabbinic style of Paul\u2019s argument in this 1 Corinthians 9 passage.) A study of the New Testament will also show that those sins requiring death or exile in the Tenach require disfellowshipping in the New Covenant. The New Testament also indicates that there are laws that are universally incumbent upon all believers while there are other commands that are apart of the gift and call of God to the Jewish people (Acts 15, Romans 11:29). Although not strictly an ethical\/ceremonial distinction, there is a distinction parallel to the rabbinic idea of Noachide responsibilities for all human beings and a Jewish responsibility that includes practices and lifestyle dynamics not to be imposed upon Gentiles. Acts 15, 21 and 27 and Romans 11 make this clear. Hence a Jewish believer still has Jewish responsibilities. The New Testament never imposes this lifestyle on Gentiles, but assumes continued Torah lifestyle among Jewish followers of Yeshua in a New Covenant context.
\nThe Halakic approach to the commands of the Tenach asks of each commandment (this should be done with New Covenant commands also):<\/p>\n
(1) What does the command mean in the context given?<\/p>\n
(2) Is there an underlying principle behind the command and what is it? (e.g. building a fence on a roof is a command given under the principle of taking measures to safeguard the lives of other people.)<\/p>\n
(3) To whom is this command given?<\/p>\n
(4) How do we apply this command in a New Covenant order? We should note that the New Covenant transforms all the commands into a dimension of promise, since it promises the power or ability to live in full obedience to God.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 7: The Halakic Approach Yields a Jewish Life in Fulfilled Form.<\/p>\n
The Halakic New Covenant Approach gives us the practical means of applying those laws specifically given as part of Israel\u2019s life and witness. Here are some examples:<\/p>\n
(1) In general, Jewish life and identity is based on the remembrance of Jewish history and what God has done for us as part of that history. Israel\u2019s feasts, celebrations, and practices are largely connected to a corporate remembrance of which each individual is a part. However, all celebration in a New Covenant context must be Yeshua-centric since his life, death and resurrection is the climax of salvation history. This history is the context for understanding his fulfillment and looking forward to the eschatological fulfillments yet to come.<\/p>\n
(2) We can note as an example in this regard how Passover can be celebrated. We still remember the constitutive act of our national birth in the Passover-Exodus stories. We do not forget the past work of God in our history because Yeshua has come. However, he is the centre of our seder as the Passover Lamb. Passover commands in the Tenach say that no uncircumcised person should partake of the seder with the Jewish people. However, New Covenant realities have altered the situation. The born again Christian in Yeshua, for example, has a circumcised heart and is raised with Yeshua to the heavenly sphere of the presence of God through connection to the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:2). He is washed and clean, a temple of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). Hence in the New Covenant order physically uncircumcised Gentiles who believe in Yeshua are invited to our seder!<\/p>\n
(3) The Sabbath is also seen in its continuing validity for Messianic Jews in the New Covenant Halakic approach. Christian Halakah (if we might venture the term) has rightly taught that the principle of one day of rest in seven is needful for our lives as long as we are in our physical bodies. However, the Sabbath in its specific seventh day rest is a sign of the covenant between God and Israel. It is a memorial of the creation and the Exodus. In a New Covenant context, the Sabbath is practiced with a Yeshua-centric emphasis. This emphasis includes the teaching of Yeshua on the Sabbath and Hebrews 4 which enjoins us to enter into a life of trust and rest in him. We also look forward to the world to come, the Sabbath Age of God, wherein the people of God experience the fullness of rest.<\/p>\n
(4) Similar reapplications take place for Yom Kippur, for we fast and pray for Israel\u2019s redemption through Yeshua as well as giving time to renew our commitments to God. We emphasize Yeshua as High Priest and Sacrifice. Sukkot not only looks back upon God\u2019s provision in the wilderness when we lived in tents and God provided for all of our needs; it looks forward to the establishment of the universal worldwide rule of Yeshua (Zechariah 14). Shavuot not only speaks of the first harvest and the giving of the Law, but of the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 2) and the fullness of the Spirit to be experienced in the age to come. This provides the Body of the Messiah with a lifestyle that reflects Thesis No. 3, that fulfillment does not eliminate the presence of the meaning of the past.<\/p>\n
(5) Even Tallit and Tefillin are similar in application. The principle of the Tallit is to remember our royal priestly call and to live accordingly (Numbers 15). This takes on an enhanced meaning in Yeshua. The principle behind the Tefillin command is to take practical steps to remember the commands of the Torah, especially to walk in loving God with all of our hearts. Whether interpreted as originally meant to be followed literally or figuratively, we certainly can agree on the importance of the principle underlying the command.<\/p>\n
(6) We might note as well that if the corporate identity of a people is their history and the culture arising therefrom, then we as Messianic Jews are connected to this history and find our identity in the context of this history. We are the people who went through the Red Sea, who entered the land of Canaan under Joshua, who went into captivity to Babylon, and who as a nation corporately rejected the redemption provided by Yeshua. Our identity is not only the memory of what God has done for us (the feasts) but, as Messianic Jews, is the specific corporate dimensions of sin that we needed to be redeemed from! Hence the sufferings of our people are our sufferings, its concern for national homeland is our concern. Its culture is our culture so far as it is consistent with the Scriptures. However, more than all of this our identity with our people is born of the hope that God has not abandoned Israel, the Jewish people. Our people will yet accept Yeshua and say, \u201cBlessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord\u201d (Matthew 23). Hence we identify with our people because of a living hope for their full redemption with all that this implies for world redemption (Romans 11:15\u201331).<\/p>\n
The New Covenant Halakic approach to Torah in general (the whole Bible is Torah\u2014the instruction of God), and to Jewish practice in particular is in my view the most fruitful approach to the Torah. It is a Jewish approach rather than a foreign theological system imposed on the Scriptures. It reflects the unity of the Bible and the continuity of salvation history. This approach frees us from legalism, but not from the proper role of law. It emphasizes the Spirit so as to avoid the childish and soulish. It solves problems in exegesis and debate from the impasse between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. It is my hope that this approach will be more firmly established among Jewish disciples of Yeshua in the days ahead.<\/p>\n
B. A RESPONSE TO DAN JUSTER\u2019S
\n\u201cTHE TORAH AND MESSIANIC JEWISH PRACTICE\u201d
\n(Revised)<\/p>\n
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
\nAriel Ministries
\nTustin, California<\/p>\n
This response to Dan Juster\u2019s paper will follow the order and outline of the paper itself. One general observation is to point out that the paper makes many dogmatic assertions without any real attempt to prove such assertions. Other views are categorically dismissed on the basis that they are not \u201cadequate\u201d views for a presupposed \u201cMessianic Judaism,\u201d but there is no biblical attempt to substantiate this presupposed Messianic Judaism. Furthermore, there is no attempt to interact exegetically with passages of Scripture which are the basis of the other views. This is a major weakness of Juster\u2019s paper.<\/p>\n
PART ONE
\nINTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
In the introduction, Juster refers to me as teaching that certain Jewish practices are the responsibility of Jewish believers to observe. It is true that I believe that those things rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant are prescriptive and mandatory. I do not make those things rooted in the Torah as mandatory, but they are optional. The issue must be clarified. It is not: may a Jewish believer today observe things rooted in the Torah (e.g., Passover, Tabernacles, Sabbath, etc.)? The issue is: is it mandatory? This issue must be clarified in order to avoid confusion.
\nJuster speaks of \u201cnew moderate dispensationalists\u201d who teach that \u201cthe moral principles of the law as having universal validity\u201d and cites Ryrie\u2019s Dispensationalism Today (pp. 107\u2013108). But Juster clearly misunderstands Ryrie. Ryrie is a firm believer that the entire Law of Moses, all 613 commandments, have been rendered inoperative. Ryrie, like all \u201cmoderate dispensationalists,\u201d draws a distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, the commands of the New Covenant which are applicable to a New Covenant believer. Juster\u2019s citation is from a section of the book in which Ryrie discusses the moral principles of the Sermon on the Mount and not the Law of Moses. (More will be said about the relationship of the moral law and the Law of Moses in Dispensationalism later.)
\nAlso in the introduction, Juster keeps referring to circumcision as being rooted in the Torah, and this may imply that I am inconsistent in teaching that circumcision is mandatory today for all Jews, including Jewish believers. However, the Torah only began with Moses and the Exodus. Circumcision is not rooted in the Mosaic Law, but in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17) and that is the basis for its continuous practice for Jews, not the Law of Moses.
\nJuster also states: \u201cWhat is amazing about congregations \u2026 is that they all practice varying measures of Jewish life and culture. Aspects of this cultural practice are rooted in the Torah.\u201d This is true, but many other practices, at times the majority of them, are rooted not in the Torah, but in Rabbinic Judaism. Torah only commanded that the Sabbath be kept as a day of rest. How does a Messianic Jew keep the Sabbath, if he does? He probably does rest, although he may have to drive to his local messianic congregation. But usually he also lights the candles, breaks and eats the challah, and drinks the wine. None of the latter three are in the Torah, but all are rabbinic innovations. The same is true for many other practices. This does not mean that they are necessarily wrong in themselves. But the issue remains: are they obligatory or are they optional?<\/p>\n
PART TWO
\nSEVEN THESES ON TORAH-BASED PRACTICES FOR MESSIANIC JEWS<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 1: God Has Not Done Away with His Law<\/p>\n
This section of Juster\u2019s paper contains three weaknesses. The first weakness is that he never define clearly what he means by \u201claw\u201d or \u201cTorah.\u201d If taken in normal usage, it applies to the 613 commandments found in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. If this is so, then not even Juster accepts his own thesis since he must believe in the doing away in some form of many of these commandments, if not most. The commandments concerning priesthood and sacrifice are only one example and others can be cited (clothing laws, etc.). Regardless of what semantics may be used to describe this change (superseded, brought to greater fulfillment, bringing out its true meaning, et. al.). It is clear that a great many of the 613 commandments no longer apply as they are written. If by \u201cTorah\u201d Juster means only the ethical standards, then his citation of Matthew 5:17\u201318 does not prove this. Verse 19 adds:<\/p>\n
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall he called great in the kingdom of heaven.<\/p>\n
Certainly these least commandments include more than merely the ethical laws and the emphasis is on the entire Torah, all 613 commandments.
\nThe second weakness is that his treatment of Matthew 5:17\u201318 is insufficient. To claim that \u201cfulfillment\u201d here means \u201cto fill up the meaning of, and\/or to bring to its highest meaning,\u201d is purely arbitrary and a conclusion apparently reached more on the basis of a previous preconception rather than a study of Matthew\u2019s own usage of the term. Throughout Matthew\u2019s gospel, pleirosai is used in reference to fulfilling prophecy and so bringing it to an end, Matthew 1:22\u201323 states that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was \u201cfulfilled,\u201d and this brought that prophecy to an end and so nothing in the future will fulfill it. Other examples can be cited (e.g., 2:15). Robert Gundry, after a careful study of Matthew\u2019s usage of the word, states:<\/p>\n
Fulfillment might refer to the accomplishment of prophecy in contrast with abolishment by failure to fulfill them. (Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, p. 80).<\/p>\n
The most basic and frequent meaning of pleiroo is \u201cto fulfill\u201d and by itself does not carry the concept \u201cto bring to its highest meaning.\u201d More true to the text is Stanley Toussaint\u2019s observation:<\/p>\n
The verb \u201cto fulfill\u201d (pleiroo) has the same basic meaning as it did in Matthew 2:15 where it means \u201cto establish completely.\u201d Rather than destroying the Law and the prophets, he establishes them. This he did by (1) perfectly conforming his life to its high standards, and (2) retrieving its true meaning from the niceties of its rabbinic interpretation.<\/p>\n
Juster\u2019s statement, \u201cIt is amazing how antinomians can interpret fulfillment as doing away with the Law despite these verses,\u201d is beside the point. Those who believe that the Law of Moses as a rule of life for the believer has been done away (or better, rendered inoperative\u2014katargeo) do not believe that this happened with the coming of the Messiah, or by His life, but by His death. As long as He was alive, He was under the Torah and had to fulfill it and obey every commandment applicable to Him. The statement of Matthew 5:17\u201319 (verse 19 must not be ignored) was made while He was living, and as long as He was living He had to obey the Torah in the manner that Moses commanded and not in the ways that the rabbis had reinterpreted it. Even while He was living, He already implied the doing away of the Law. One example is Mark 7:19: This He said making all meats clean.
\nCan it be made any clearer than this that at least the laws of kashrut have been done away? Again, Juster himself must admit that great parts of the Torah no longer apply in the manner prescribed by Moses. So, have they been done away with or not? Nor is Juster fair with the use of the term \u201canti-nomian.\u201d Those who believe that the Law of Moses no longer applies, still believe in law and insist that there are commandments to live by, but they are those of the Law of the Messiah (Gal. 6:2; Rom. 8:2) and not the Law of Moses.
\nThe third weakness is that Juster does not deal with the Scriptures used to show that the Law of Moses has indeed been rendered inoperative. These passages (e.g., Rom. 7:1\u20136; 10:4; Gal. 3:19; 3:24\u20134:7; Heb. 7:11\u201312, 18; 2 Cor. 3:2\u201311; Eph. 2:11\u201316, etc.) cannot simply be ignored. Citing Matthew 5:17\u201318 is insufficient, either to explain away these passages or to establish this first thesis or to prove this conclusion \u201cthat God has not done away with His Torah.\u201d
\nJuster proceeds to state that the ethical aspects have continued and then asks, \u201c\u2026 are there other aspects that continue?\u201d The implication is that the answer is yes. Since no criterion was provided to determine what does or does not, it would seem that the selection would be highly subjective. I cannot help but wonder if the selection of which of the 613 commandments still apply will be based on Jewish-rabbinic prejudices (e.g., Shabbat, kashrut, tfillin, etc.).<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 2: The New Covenant is Not Merely a Renewal of the Covenantal Material Given Through Moses<\/p>\n
What Juster says here is good as far as it goes, but it is incomplete in light of New Testament revelation. The New Covenant is just that\u2014it is new. It is a \u201csecond\u201d covenant, distinct from the \u201cfirst\u201d covenant according to Hebrews 8:7. It is clearly stated to be distinct from the covenant made at Sinai (not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt \u2026 [Jer. 31:32]). The fact that there are some similarities between the Old and the New does not mean that a part of the Old has been retained by the New. One\u2019s new car may have similarities with one\u2019s old car, but this does not mean that parts of the old car are in the new one. The new car is a totally different car. Even if one buys the same make, model and year, it is still another car. In this section, Juster admits that the New Covenant has clearly altered the Old to a very great extent so as to do away with most of the Book of Leviticus, among other things. A listing of the 613 will show that the majority no longer apply. So, what is left? Juster states the \u201cbasic ethical standards\u201d: but if these \u201cbasic ethical standards\u201d are part of the New Covenant, what is really left of the Old as far as mandatory practice is concerned? Juster has already implied that more than just ethical standards continue. If the law in its entirety is still in effect, then the New Covenant clearly violates and contradicts the Law of Moses in a number of areas, allowing what the law forbade and forbidding what the law allowed. For example, the law forbade any uncircumcised Gentile to participate at the Passover. The New Covenant actually forbids Gentile circumcision for religious or spiritual reasons. So now an uncircumcised Gentile may be invited to the seder. This is not merely a new application because of changing historical situations. It is a contradiction and a violation of the Law of Moses. So Juster must agree that some portions (great portions?) of the Law of Moses have in some way been done away and admit that there is a change in the Jewish believer\u2019s relationship to the law.
\nUnder point three in this section, Juster mentions our co-death with Yeshua, citing Romans 6 and Galatians 2:20; but also germane to this discussion is Romans 7:1\u20136, which teaches that our co-death has freed us from the law:<\/p>\n
But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held \u2026 (v. 6).<\/p>\n
In the closing paragraph, Juster states, \u201cThe New Covenant realities change our relation to the Law as a child to an adult (Gal. 3:23ff).\u201d But this passage goes much further than that. The law is the tutor. Once adulthood has been reached, we are no longer under this tutor. As for his citation of Hebrews eight in the same paragraph, the passage itself does not limit the \u201cvanishing away\u201d to \u201cthe old order of sacrifice and temple,\u201d but includes the whole law. Hebrews eight cites Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, which in turn states that the New Covenant will replace the old one made when they were taken out of Egypt, which is the one \u201cvanishing away.\u201d It is unlikely that the statement of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 is limited to the priesthood and sacrifices only.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 3: Fulfillment Does Not Eliminate the Presence of the Past<\/p>\n
Citing Cullmann or Jocz is not biblical proof positive. It can be agreed that those men argued for the position claimed by Juster. However, this can not be the basis for developing doctrine, but rather the positive and declarative statements of Scripture are necessary. Furthermore, the context of understanding is one thing, and rightly important. But to imply from that that the law is still mandatory is quite another matter.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 4: The Dispensational Approach is Inadequate for a Biblical Messianic Jewish Theology<\/p>\n
As one who espouses Dispensationalism, I can only say that this is Juster\u2019s weakest presentation. There is a failure to distinguish between what is held by some Dispensationalists as over against what is germane to Dispensationalism. Rightly understood, Dispensationalism is actually a very adequate approach for a biblical messianic Jewish theology because of its insistence on a consistent distinction of Israel and the Church and Jews and Gentiles in all ages.
\nHis first statement describing Dispensationalism is very broad and sweeping. True, some Dispensationalists make a distinction between a \u201cheavenly\u201d and \u201cearthly\u201d people with \u201cheavenly\u201d and \u201cearthly\u201d promises. This is not true of all Dispensationalists, nor is this germane to Dispensationalism. What is true is that Dispensationalism does posit two separate peoples of God. Juster himself may not be far from this position. When he states that \u201cwhen Scripture speaks of the relationship of Gentile believers to the believing Jews throughout history, it uses terms such as \u2018ingrafted\u2019 (Rom. 11), \u2018brought near to the covenants\u2019 (Eph. 2), and made part of the \u2018commonwealth of Israel\u2019 (Eph. 2).\u201d Except for the later, this is all true. It is also good Dispensationalism, but what about unbelieving Jews? Are they still the chosen people of God? Juster did not address himself to that question, so I do not know where he stands on that issue. But if he is like the majority of Messianic Jews I know, then his answer is probably yes. If so, then unbelieving Israel and the Church are both in some respect God\u2019s peoples, though not in a salvific sense, which would only be true of the latter. If all this is so, does not Juster also believe in two peoples of God?
\nJuster states further, \u201cYet Scripture does still delineate a Jewish distinction.\u201d This too is good Dispensationalism, since consistent Dispensationalism insists on a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, and this includes a distinction of Jews and Gentiles in the Church. A Dispensationalist who states (in Juster\u2019s words), \u201cone is either a lost Jew, a lost Gentile, or neither and part of the church\u201d is an inconsistent Dispensationalist. Such a view is not germane to Dispensationalism, nor is it only Dispensationalists who make such statements.
\nJuster\u2019s second objection to Dispensationalism is that it \u201copposes law to grace\u201d and that this \u201cdistinction produces a theological ambivalence to the Mosaic writings in the heart of the Jewish believer who embraces this theology.\u201d Nowhere in this section does Juster reject Dispensationalism on exegetical grounds, but on the basis that the dispensational Jewish believer does not follow Juster\u2019s view of the Law of Moses. Juster makes no attempt here to deal with Scriptures that do show an antithesis between law and grace such as John 1:17 (For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ), or Romans 6:14 (\u2026 for ye are not under law, but under grace), etc.
\nThat the law was not a \u201cworks-righteousness system\u201d is agreed by Dispensationalists who view the law as a rule of life and not as a way of salvation. I am not sure what Juster means when he states that the dispensational Jewish believer becomes \u201cambivalent\u201d to the writings of Moses. Does he mean that we do not take it seriously and do not study it? This is not true. Does he mean that we feel no obligation to keep it, though we may choose to do so? This is true, but this does not make it wrong. Juster himself does not believe that most of the 613 commandments are still mandatory. Has he become \u201cambivalent\u201d to these?
\nA simple explanation of the dispensational viewpoint on the law at this point may help to clarify things. (The following is a summary of Robert P. Lightner\u2019s chapter on \u201cA Dispensational View of the Law of Moses\u201d in his article entitled, \u201cA Dispensational Response to Theonomy.\u201d)<\/p>\n
1. Dispensationalists believe that the Law of Moses in its entirety has been done away with as a rule of life; it has been set aside and is not operative as a stewardship or a way by which God manages His household affairs today.<\/p>\n
2. The Law of Moses was given to Israel and not the Church.<\/p>\n
3. The Law of Moses is a unit and cannot be divided into two-fold, three-fold, or four-fold systems by which part of the law is retained and part done away. That the law contained legislation related to Israel\u2019s moral, religious, and civic life is not disputed; however, when parts are divided to support the contention that some of the law is still operative as a rule of life today, while other parts are not, then a totally new and unwarranted concept is introduced that is foreign to the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
4. Among the purposes of the law is included:<\/p>\n
a. To reveal God\u2019s holiness;<\/p>\n
b. To unify and distinguish Israel as a nation;<\/p>\n
c. To provide a basis for Israel\u2019s walk and worship of God;<\/p>\n
d. To expose the sinfulness of man;<\/p>\n
e. To provide atonement by the shedding of blood;<\/p>\n
f. To serve as a middle wall of partition to keep Gentiles from enjoying Israel\u2019s blessings as Gentiles; and<\/p>\n
g. To reveal the Messiah.<\/p>\n
5. As to the relationship of the moral law of God and the Law of Moses, the moral law of God refers to those eternal principles that reflect the nature of God. Dispensationalists do not believe that the moral law of God terminated at Calvary, nor do they believe that the moral law began with Moses or that the moral law and the Ten Commandments are identical. The moral law is not equivalent to the Mosaic Law. However, the Law of Moses, which was \u201cadded because of transgressions,\u201d included the moral law along with the ceremonial, civil, criminal, sanitary, and government laws. The moral law existed before Moses and continues after the cross. Adam violated the moral law of God long before Moses. Satan violated the moral law before Adam. To do what the Ten Commandments forbade did not first begin with Moses except the Sabbath commandment (which was itself more ceremonial than moral). It was always wrong to do those things. The Law of Moses embodied the moral law, as does the Law of the Messiah, but it did not originate with it.<\/p>\n
6. The Law of Moses was a rule of life for Israel until the Messiah died, it was not a means of salvation, but a modus operandi, the way and means by which God managed his affairs on earth.<\/p>\n
7. The law is now ended. This is based on an exegesis of the passages cited earlier.<\/p>\n
For the above reasons, Dispensationalism is very adequate for a Messianic Jewish theology, because it takes the statements of the New Covenant about the Law of Moses seriously. Furthermore, its insistence that there is still a Jewish distinctive today is very adequate for a distinctive Jewish lifestyle.
\nAs to Juster\u2019s third point that \u201cit leads to an ambivalence to Jewish life under the false conception that this would be \u2018mixing law and grace,\u2019 \u201d this is simply not true to experience. Dispensational Jewish believers are not behind others in Jewish lifestyles and sometimes are even more traditional than others (e.g. compare the Fruchtenbaum Passover Haggadah with Juster\u2019s Passover Haggadah and see which one is more traditional). But there is a clear recognition by the dispensational Jewish believer that these practices, whether rooted in Torah or Rabbinic Judaism, are optional and not mandatory. If this is the meaning of \u201cambivalence,\u201d at least it is also biblical. Dispensational messianic congregations (e.g., Beth Ariel Fellowship of Los Angeles, Kehilat Ariel of San Diego, and Kehilat Ha-Mashiah of Portland) lead as much a Jewish lifestyle as others. Perhaps flexibility would be a better word choice.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 5: The Covenant Theology Approach is Inadequate for a Biblical Messianic Jewish Theology<\/p>\n
While I tend to agree with this thesis, it should be addressed by one who espouses Covenant Theology, which I do not.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 6: The New Covenant Halakic Approach is the Proper Approach to Aid us in Answering the Questions of the Relationship of Israel to the Church and Law to Grace and the Nature of Messianic Jewish Practice Based on Torah<\/p>\n
It is true that \u201cJudaism has traditionally recognized that new situations required new applications of the Law,\u201d but does this make it a valid criterion for the Jewish believer? What if a new practice is not a new application, but an actual contradiction of the Law of Moses (e.g., such as making all meats clean)? Yeshua\u2019s conflict with the rabbis was not merely over misapplication of the law, but over the authority of the Mishnah as a whole (Mark seven). What is happening in the New Testament is not merely a new situation requiring a new application of the old law. It is much more than that. It is the introduction of a new law altogether, which makes the other \u201cold\u201d (Hebrews 8:1\u201313). It is a new law that contradicts the old in many areas and would be in violation of the Law of Moses if that law was still in effect (e.g., Gentile circumcision, all meats clean, et al.).
\nJuster states that the \u201cHalakic approach recognizes the continuing validity of the Law under the New Covenant.\u201d This may be true, and for that reason this very approach is suspect. In what way is the law a \u201ccontinuing validity\u201d? As an obligation? It may be halakic, but by itself this does not make it biblical.
\nWhat Juster appears to be calling for is a study of each individual commandment of the 613 to see how it applies or can be applied today. In essence, he seems to be calling for a new \u201cGreat Synagogue\u201d or a new \u201cSchool of the Sophrim.\u201d But this will result in a great deal of subjectivity as attempts are made to determine which commandments still apply, and if so, how? The product will be a new Mishnah. Furthermore, if those conclusions become mandatory for all Jewish believers, then this will result in a new Pharisaism. (In a paper presented by a representative of the UMJC to the North American Committee of the LCJE, the Sabbath has already become mandatory for all Jewish believers.) And if a Jewish believer chooses to do otherwise, is he sinning?
\nTo claim that all this can be achieved by \u201ccreative thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit\u201d is naive. All kinds of ideas are postulated by those who claim to have beers \u201cled of the Lord.\u201d Unless this new \u201cSchool of the Sophrim\u201d receives direct revelation from God, the result will be one of subjective conclusions based on a presupposition that the Law of Moses still applies and all will claim to have received guidance from the Holy Spirit. Nor is there likely to be clear agreement as to what points of rabbinic halachah will be helpful or harmful.
\nThe New Covenant postulates a far simpler solution. The Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative as a rule of life. The Law of the Messiah is the rule of life for the believer today, and it contains enough commandments to keep both Jewish and Gentile believers busy all the days of their lives. Furthermore, the Jewish believer may keep aspects of the Law of Moses and even Rabbinic Judaism on a voluntary, but not obligatory, basis.
\nJuster states that the \u201cJewish believer has Jewish responsibilities,\u201d and that the \u201cNew Testament never imposes this life-style on Gentiles but assumes continued Torah life-style among Jewish followers of Yeshua in a New Covenant context.\u201d If by \u201cassumes\u201d Juster means it is optional, then well and good. If he means it is mandatory, that is a different matter altogether. Furthermore, Juster does not list what these responsibilities are for a Jewish believer, though not for a Gentile believer, and such a list is crucial to see just where this new halakic approach is leading. Also, if the Law of Moses is mandatory for the Jewish believer, but not the Gentile, is not Juster postulating two peoples of God with two different law codes? This would be the very thing for which he had earlier criticized Dispensationalists. If the Sabbath commandment is applied differently for Jewish believers (who must keep the seventh day of the week) than for Gentile believers (who are only required to keep one in seven days), then the law is not applied equally to all believers. Citing Acts 14, 21 and 27 does not prove duster\u2019s contention. These passages only show historically what the Jewish believers in the land practiced, but they say nothing about the mandatory nature of those practices.
\nThe four steps Juster proposes to determine how the 613 commandments can be made mandatory in the twentieth century would in essence mean a rewriting of the Law of Moses. In the end, the keeping of the law will not be on the basis of the words of Moses \u201cas it is written.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 7: The Halakic Approach Yields a Jewish Life in Fulfilled Form<\/p>\n
Again, if the conclusions of the halakic approach were to become mandatory, it would result in a Messianic Jewish Mishnah. It would be a tool for condemning those Jewish believers who do not follow these new precepts as leading a life of disobedience to the Torah and\/or living a life of unfulfilled Jewishness.
\nThe concluding paragraph makes a number of unwarranted claims on behalf of the halakic approach, stating that it is \u201ca Jewish approach rather than a foreign theological system imposed on the Scriptures.\u201d It is certainly a rabbinic approach, but not necessarily a true Jewish one, or even less so, a biblical one. Juster claims that this \u201capproach frees us from legalism,\u201d but in reality it will lead to it (e.g., Sabbath is mandatory for Jewish believers) by imposing on the Jewish believer exactly what the Messiah has freed him from. Juster further claims that this approach \u201csolves problems in exegesis and debate from the impasse between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology.\u201d In reality, it will do neither. No hermeneutical system that can be consistently and objectively applied is provided and the exegesis of many passages cited earlier is conspicuously absent. This halakic approach is actually an imposition of a foreign rabbinic theological frame of reference on the New Covenant, and will not solve the exegetical problems.
\nDispensationalism is a natural conclusion derived from a literal hermeneutic consistently applied. From conclusions derived with this hermeneutic, it is evident that the Jewish believer is free from the law and has a choice \u201cto keep or not to keep\u201d in these areas. This approach allows for a variety of Messianic Jewish expressions and a variety of Jewish lifestyles rather than imposing one system upon all, and it avoids a potentially endless number of man-made laws.
\nIt is my hope that, rather than creating a new Mishnah, Jewish believers will study and teach the Law of the Messiah as found in the New Covenant, understanding and communicating it within its Jewish cultural and historical context. By allowing freedom and a variety of Jewish lifestyles, this will lead to equal acceptance of each other and unity in diversity. But if only one type of \u201cJewish lifestyle\u201d is accepted as an absolute norm, it will cause divisions not only between Jewish and Gentile believers, but also between Jewish believers themselves. May God keep us from that.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX III<\/p>\n
AN INTERCHANGE ON HEBREW CHRISTIAN\/MESSIANIC JEWISH CONGREGATIONS<\/p>\n
In February 1985, the Grace Community Church of Los Angeles, California issued a paper condemning the establishment of Messianic Jewish congregations. Their paper and this writer\u2019s response is reproduced in this section. While the church is dispensational, it is not consistent with its Dispensationalism. Furthermore, what they call \u201cthe American Messianic Synagogue Movement\u201d does not exist by that organizational name. The issue they raise actually deals with congregations. The following is their paper.<\/p>\n
A. THE AMERICAN MESSIANIC SYNAGOGUE MOVEMENT:
\nDEFICIENCIES, MISTAKES, AND ERRORS
\nIN LIGHT OF THE SCRIPTURES
\nElders Council Handling Outreach
\nGrace Community Church
\nFebruary 1985<\/p>\n
This position paper does not purport to exhaustively cover all the issues that have been raised, especially over the last 15 years, pertaining to the phenomenon of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement. Articles, journals, books, seminars, and consultations abound in profusion on this topic. One of the most widely discussed topics in missiology in recent years is contextualization, and certainly much of the current impetus of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement has been derived from the helpful and controversial applications of contextualization to the modern missionary enterprise.
\nNeither does this position paper intend to deal comprehensively with all the theological and biblical arguments which could be raised by the elders in the Outreach Dept. of Grace Church against some of the excesses of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement. Many good things have come as a result of the increased attention and sensitivity given to Jews around the USA, which this movement has helped foster. The purpose of this paper is simply to list in summary fashion 12 important theological and biblical issues pertaining to this movement and to invite participants in the movement, either those directly in its leadership or those indirectly on its fringe, to respond to these 12 points. We need to understand what others are thinking, why they would hold to positions the Bible would appear not to sanction, and how they would answer these 12 points from a Scriptural perspective. From our interpretation of the Bible, based on the historico-grammatical method of interpretation, there appear to be grave deficiencies, mistakes, and errors in the American Messianic Synagogue Movement. We openly invite those of varying points of view to respond to these concerns, and we anticipate fruitful, future discussions.
\nThe following concerns are not listed in any order in particular. They come out of the study and teaching of two of the professors of Talbot Theological Seminary (which is closely affiliated with Grace Community Church), Dr. Charles L. Feinberg and Prof. Marc T. Mueller, as well as a number of the pastoral elders and lay elders of the Elders Council Handling Outreach of Grace Community Church.<\/p>\n
1. The Lack of Definition of the Title \u201cJew\u201d<\/p>\n
It is a commonly known fact that among Jews themselves there is no universal agreement as to who or what constitutes a \u201cJew.\u201d Is it a political, national, religious, or theological title? The simpler a word is, the more possible definitions it can have. And so it would seem is the word \u201cJew\u201d to 20th century man. Even the modern state of Israel has been unable to issue an official declaration of its definition of a Jew.
\nBut the heart of the matter focuses not upon what a Jew is but upon what a true Jew is. Of course, \u201cJew\u201d is a national designation; but according to the New Testament it is primarily a spiritual designation. Even though we believe the nation of Israel still has a place in modern prophecy and the Jews as a nation are still in line to receive national blessings in the future, a true Jew is primarily a spiritual designation. In Romans 2:18\u201329a the Apostle Paul clearly states:<\/p>\n
\u201cFor he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
Paul restates this point in Galatians 3:28 when he says, \u201cThere is neither Jew nor Greek, \u2026 for you are all one in Christ Jesus.\u201d The New Testament clearly teaches that a true Jew is one who is a Jew spiritually in Christ. While a believing Gentile doesn\u2019t become a Jew, he does become a spiritual \u201cSon of Abraham\u201d with all the inherent spiritual blessings which God intended for the true Jew. Even Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, was not circumcised until late in life (Gen. 17:24), years after he had put aside his graven images, followed the Lord, and believed in Him. Abraham did not revel in his Jewishness; in fact God simply \u201cmade\u201d him a Jew. No Jews existed before him. Abraham demonstrates that from the very beginning God intended that to be Jewish meant to have a saving, spiritual relationship with the one true God and not simply one who ascribed to outward form.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement give a fundamentally different meaning to the word \u201cJew\u201d than Paul does in Rom. 2:28\u201329? If the only true Jews are those who are Jews spiritually, then the modern ethnic uniqueness of the Jew is of no account. Why revel in the outward externals, if God, looking on the heart, says all believers are the same in Christ? And if most of the Jews that the proponents of this movement are seeking to reach are presently non-Christians, then according to the New Testament they are not true Jews anyway. Why should we pump up such ethnic pride and tell them they are one thing when God says they are something else? Should we not treat them the same way God treated Abraham, the father of their race?<\/p>\n
2. Failure to Distinguish Between Old Testament Theology and Rabbinic Theology and Tradition<\/p>\n
Much of what is done in Judaism today is not based upon the theology and practices as laid out in the Old Testament. Rather it is based upon rabbinic theology and tradition. Obviously, modern Judaism, without a temple and tribal lineages, is a pale imitation of the system laid out by God in the early books of the Old Testament. But even with the temple and the tribal lineages in tact, Jesus Himself had a terrible time fighting against the encroaching traditions and human interpretations which the Jewish leaders had piled upon their people (e.g. Matt. 15:1\u201320). Various celebrations and calendar events are certainly important to the modern Jew, but events like Hannakah find their roots in tradition and not in Old Testament theology.<\/p>\n
Issue: Why would the proponents of this movement, given our definition of a Jew which is primarily a religious and spiritual definition, put such an emphasis on their Messianic Judaism, which is primarily a cultural and rabbinic tradition? Why risk doing great damage to the Body of Christ and great harm to the integrity of the Scriptures, when what is at stake are essentially cultural and traditional practices, many of which were already corrupted by the time of Christ? In Matthew 23:24, Jesus said, \u201cYou blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.\u201d Isn\u2019t the movement just straining out gnats and swallowing camels?<\/p>\n
3. Failure to Properly Interpret 1 Corinthians 9:19\u201323<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most commonly used passage in the New Testament as a prooftext for the validity of a messianic synagogue movement is the first part of Paul\u2019s great missionary defense for using any and every method appropriate in winning to Christ the various target audiences in his ministry. In 1 Corinthians 9:20 Paul says:<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those that are under the Law;\u201d<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s statement in this passage has to do with evangelism. Theologically, one cannot reduce all of ecclesiology to evangelism. The Church does many other things besides evangelizing one particular ethnic group. 1 Corinthians 9 cannot be used as a prooftext for planting Hebrew-Christian congregations so that converts can cultivate a Jewish lifestyle. The cultural conditioning of a local church is not something it promotes for itself, but rather it receives it in a passive way as a result of the particular make-up of their congregation of people.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement base their whole system of ecclesiology on a passage that is merely evangelistic and strategic? How can they avoid those passages and books of the New Testament that clearly present a more balanced view of ecclesiology (e.g. Gal. 5\u20136, the Book of Ephesians)? Furthermore, is a church to have only one cultural orientation? And is the purpose of a church to promote such cultural orientation?<\/p>\n
4. Failure to Distinguish Between the Great Principles of Law and Grace<\/p>\n
The old covenant did not merely merge into the new covenant. Paul is emphatic that the old system passed away and that any attempt to seek God through that system is heresy. In Galatians 5:2\u20134, 6 Paul says:<\/p>\n
\u201cBehold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace \u2026 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.<\/p>\n
Life for the Hebrew Christian is not merely taking the best things from Judaism and blending them with the least offensive or most comfortable aspects of Christianity. The great principles of law and grace cannot be harmonized. And to encourage a not-yet converted Hebrew or a brand new Hebrew Christian to begin looking back to the outer trappings of a system of law could run the risk of damning their souls. From Paul\u2019s perspective, such individuals may not be converted but \u201chave fallen from grace.\u201d From Jesus\u2019 perspective, such an approach could be just one more way in which Satan, like a bird, swoops down and snatches the seed, the Word, from the soil before it has a chance to germinate (Mark 4:15). Even though proponents of a messianic synagogue movement may not intend to foist the trappings of law upon the uninitiated, they certainly run that great risk of having their message misunderstood.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage interested \u201clookers-on\u201d and recently converted Hebrew Christians to begin syncretistically applying to themselves concepts and practices that at the same time embrace elements of the old covenant as well as the new? Are they not mixing law and grace? Or could not some of the very immature ones perceive it as such? How can such a fine line be followed? What hermeneutical system do the proponents of this movement set down for their messianic synagogues? What is to stop them from sacrificing goats if they want to?<\/p>\n
5. Failure to Appreciate the Implications of the Atonement<\/p>\n
Although it is almost trite to include in such a discussion the fact that Christ \u201cbroke down the barrier of the dividing wall\u201d (Eph. 2:14b) that had in the past separated the Jews from the Gentiles, it still is important to reflect briefly upon how very costly it was for God to tear down that barrier, for if cost His Son His life. The Gentiles were \u201cbrought near by the blood of Christ\u201d (Eph. 2:13b), a euphemism for his death on the cross. Several times in Eph. 2:14 and 15 the text emphasizes \u201cHe Himself\u201d and \u201cHis flesh\u201d (vs. 15) and \u201cin one body\u201d (vs. 17a), \u201cestablishing peace\u201d (vs. 14a), \u201cHe came and preached peace\u201d (vs. 17a), \u201cestablishing peace\u201d (vs. 15c). The culmination of His reconciling peace was the creation of \u201cone new man\u201d (vs. 15b). This one new man, the Church, is described in very lofty, positional truths throughout the remainder of the chapter (Eph. 2:19\u201322). The point is this: one of the major purposes for Christ\u2019s death on the cross was to bring together Jew and Gentile into a new organism that had never existed before and to forever abolish \u201cthe enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances\u201d (vs. 15). The old covenant is forever abolished, and both Jews and Gentiles now find their meeting and meaning in Christ and Him alone.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage Hebrew Christians to move back toward their Judiastic roots and away from Gentile Christians when Christ died to accomplish exactly the opposite? If His death really did result in one new man, shouldn\u2019t Jews as well as Gentiles revel in our new identity in Christ, rather than trying to re-establish our independent identities? If the enmity (vs. 15a, 16b) was really tied to the Old Testament ordinances (vs. 15) but has now been destroyed \u201cthrough the cross\u201d (vs. 16), aren\u2019t the proponents of this movement really making light of (at best) or mocking (at worst) the death of Christ and seeking to divide what He died to unite? Are \u201ccultural\u201d considerations more important than a Scripturally revealed purpose for Christ\u2019s death on the cross?<\/p>\n
6. Failure to Understand Progressive Doctrinal Revelation<\/p>\n
The teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul make it clear that what began at Pentecost at the beginning of the new age of the Spirit was fundamentally different than what had preceded it. Jesus said in Mark 2:22,<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.\u201d<\/p>\n
The context of this passage is plain. Jesus is claiming that things will be different in the New Testament age, and that we cannot regress to Old Testament forms. If we try to put the new work of the Spirit into the forms, structures, practices, even culture of the old economy, it will do irreparable harm to both the wine and the wineskins (the new life of the Spirit, the one new man, of this age, along with the new forms that the Church age brings). Galatians 3:24a states that \u201cthe Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ,\u201d but that once we come to Christ \u201cwe are no longer under a tutor\u201d (Gal. 3:25b). A major focus of the Old Testament Law was to bring us to Christ just as a tutor would disciple a young student over the years. But once we have been brought into saving faith in Christ, the Law as a tutor is no longer needed, nor dare we go back to it.<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement keep urging Hebrew Christians to re-discover their Jewish roots and to keep the forms and structures that were meaningful to them in Judaism when the New Testament seems to be saying exactly the opposite? If Jesus claims that such attempted efforts will be disastrous, why disobey Jesus or why take such a risk?<\/p>\n
7. Failure to Understand the Unique Privileges, Responsibilities and Limitations Put on the Jews By God<\/p>\n
As the ancient chosen people of God, the Jews stood in a favored position over all the other peoples on earth. They were put in that position through no merit of their own (Deut. 7:6\u20138) but merely by the love and faithfulness of God (vs. 8). They enjoyed special honor and blessing. God made and kept His covenants with His chosen people. They were given His unique protection, in that they were called \u201cthe apple of His eye\u201d (Deut. 32:10). Anyone that poked his finger in the pupil of God\u2019s eye got God angry! The Jews were entrusted with the Old Testament Scriptures. They were blessed with the ministry of the prophets. They even were the people through whom God would provide a Messiah for the world. Even in unbelief the Jews enjoyed unique privileges, as Paul said that the gospel was to go \u201cto the Jew first and also to the Greek\u201d (Rom. 1:16).
\nBut because of their unique privileges, the Jews also had unique responsibilities. For example, they were to serve as a Kingdom of priests to all the other nations of the world (Exodus 19:6a). They were expected to obey the Old Testament Scriptures and the prophets and to uphold their part of the covenant. They were to wait for and follow the Messiah. Even at the very end of this age during the Tribulation, Jewish evangelists numbering 144,000 will cover the globe with the good news of the gospel and the impending judgment of God (Revelation 7:1\u20138). Jesus spoke of the responsibilities of the Jews in this manner: \u201cAnd from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more\u201d (Luke 12:48b).
\nBecause of their unique privileges and responsibilities, the Jews also shoulder unique limitations that no other people on earth are asked to bear. There are certain unique sacrifices that fall to Hebrew Christians. For one thing, Jews are unable to start ethnic local churches like all the other ethnic peoples of the world are free to do. The Jews do not have that right or freedom. There is a profound difference between a Jewish Messianic Synagogue or a Hebrew Christian congregation and any other kind of ethnic church, be it an all-Korean church or an all-Italian church or an all-Mexican church. In Judaism culture and theology were inextricably bound together and could not be separated. The Jews are the only ethnic group of which that can be stated, because all of the Gentile ethnic groups that are Christian have their religious identity and theology rooted in Jewish life, history, and culture. There is no danger of any other ethnic people drifting back into Judaism (i.e. Old Testament forms and rabbinical traditions) and its deadening legalism except the Jews themselves. Jewish Christians must be the example of demonstrating to the world that the Lord Jesus Christ has fulfilled the \u201ctypes and shadows\u201d of the Old Testament. Thus, it is even more incumbent on Jewish Christians not to drift back into rabbinical traditions or Mosaic legalism. Hebrew Christians can\u2019t move backward toward Judaism again, since legalism originated there and since all the Christians of the world have their religious roots in God\u2019s ancient people the Jews. Because of their divinely unique position and because they are always the focus of attention in the world, Jews who have come to their Messiah must be the most scrupulously New Testament in all their practices, even if other Gentile groups are not as precise and faithful to the Scriptures, because all the rest of the world is watching their example and pattern. They dare not confuse the rest of the world. It is not unfair for God to expect this of them or to place such high standards and limitations on them, since historically God has placed great privileges and accompanying responsibilities on the Jews.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement in all conscience start such synagogues or other Hebrew Christian congregations? Don\u2019t they know all the Gentile Christians of the world are watching them? Can\u2019t they see that there is an inherent difference between a Jewish ethnic church and any other kind of Gentile ethnic church? Don\u2019t they see that such irresponsible actions on their part have the potential of corrupting the doctrine and confusing the practices of any other ethnic church around the world? Jews may complain that they are being branded by others as ethnocentric, but unfortunately it comes with the territory.<\/p>\n
8. The Misunderstanding of Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s Day<\/p>\n
To the Jew the Old Testament taught him: \u201cSo you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them\u201d (Leviticus 18:5). The Jew was taught that if he was obedient he would get his reward at the end. In commenting on the 5th Commandment in Exodus 20:12, the Apostle Paul says that honoring one\u2019s father and mother was the first commandment with a promise (Ephesians 6:2), a promise of more days at the end of one\u2019s life. This was also how the Jew viewed the Sabbath. He lived six days in obedience to God and he was rewarded on the seventh day with a day of rest. However, for the Christian God has already rewarded him. \u201cThere is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus\u201d (Romans 8:1). Thus, we have the Lord\u2019s Day at the beginning of the week and live out our reward the rest of the week. The injunctions to observe the Sabbath is the only one of the Ten Commandments that does not have a counterpart somewhere in the Mew Testament. And the insistence of all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, in the Early Church to observe the Lord\u2019s Day (Sunday) rather than the Sabbath (Saturday) is proof positive that all Christians perceived the day changed as more than just a matter of preference, convenience, or sentimentality (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10).<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of the Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage their Hebrew Christian constituents to reassert the Sabbath over against the Lord\u2019s Day? What is their New Testament justification for such an action? Don\u2019t they understand we have already been rewarded in Christ?<\/p>\n
9. The Misunderstanding of Our Freedom in Christ<\/p>\n
Peter had to learn a lesson while in a trance on the housetop in Joppa when a voice said three times \u201cWhat God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy\u201d (Acts 10:15). Paul concluded that he was \u201cconvinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself\u201d (Romans 14:14a) and that \u201ceverything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude\u201d (1 Timothy 4:4). Even Jesus said that it was \u201cNot what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man\u201d (Matt. 15:11). The whole thrust of Romans 14, in which Paul gives guidelines for stronger and weaker brothers in Christ relating together, can be summarized by one verse in Galatians 5:13: \u201cFor you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.\u201d
\nThe New Testament is clear that in the age of the Church the dietary laws, special feast days, and other legal observances are subsumed under our freedom in Christ. Paul stressed in Romans 14 that under the new covenant Christians can have the freedom to observe every day alike, rather than feeling the compulsion to fix certain days as unique, above the others. Since Christ has come, that to which all the shadows of the Old Testament were pointing (Colossians 2:17), Paul encouraged the Colossians to \u201clet no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day\u201d (Col. 2:16).
\nIndividual Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, have the freedom in Christ to enjoy all foods and days. They have the freedom to celebrate any number of Jewish events, (e.g., a bar mitzvah or Hannakah) as simply a part of the Jewish calendar, but not with any \u201credeeming\u201d religious significance. Where the proponents of Hebrew Christian congregations err is in the incorporation of the \u201ctypes and shadows\u201d for the \u201cSubstance\u201d of their worship. They err when they restrict their religious activities to the Sabbath, eat only kosher foods, and observe Yom Kippur and Passover, two holidays that have clearly passed away with the termination of the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system of the old covenant (Heb. 7:12, 8:13).<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement at times run the risk of encouraging their people to voluntarily place themselves back under the trappings of Judaism in regard to food, drink, holidays, or Sabbaths? Does this not violate the lessons learned from Jesus, Peter, and Paul? Doesn\u2019t the encouragement to celebrate the Day of Atonement and Passover confuse many clear passages in Hebrews about the passing of the old covenant and the institution of the new? Aren\u2019t we called to freedom, a freedom to serve one another? \u201cIf therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed\u201d (John 8:36).<\/p>\n
10. Misunderstanding of the Unique But Temporal Role of the Jerusalem Church in Early Christian History<\/p>\n
The one church in the New Testament that was clearly a Jewish church was the one in Jerusalem. But it was a Hebrew Christian congregation not by design but due to the city\u2019s overwhelmingly Jewish population. As \u201ca great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem\u201d (Acts 8:16), these Hebrew Christians \u201cwere all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria\u201d (Acts 8:1c). Other Jewish congregations no doubt were established in Judea, although Luke the physician only records the beginnings of the church among the half-breed Samaritans (Acts 8:4\u20138). From that point on the churches begin to move away from their decidedly Jewish flavor and become more and more predominantly Gentile in nature (e.g. Acts 11:19\u201321). But again, this occurred not by design but was due to the surrounding nations overwhelmingly Gentile population. As the Church expanded outward from Jerusalem it became a Gentile Church by the sheer demographic characteristics of the Roman Empire. But God never intended the Church to remain Jewish but designed that it flourish \u201cboth in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth\u201d (Acts 1:8b).
\nIt was not God\u2019s intent that all the churches springing up around the Roman Empire be viewed identically by Him or by each other. The churches enjoyed diversity in the midst of the true spiritual unity. Roland Allen, in his classic work Missionary Methods: St. Paul\u2019s Or Ours?, convincingly demonstrates Paul\u2019s mentality in approaching the local churches with whom he worked in the Early Church. Paul did not view Jerusalem as the headquarters of a new \u201cclub\u201d and all the Jerusalem Christians as being card-carrying \u201cfull\u201d members, with all the other subsequent churches as new chapters of the club and all other Christians as \u201cassociate\u201d members. Allen states on page 176:<\/p>\n
\u201cUnity might be maintained two ways. The church in Jerusalem might be regarded as the original Church, the body of Christ established and organized by His Apostles. The converts in the Four Provinces might be regarded as joining that Church \u2026 On the other hand, new churches established in the provinces might be regarded equally with the first as parts of a still incomplete whole which must grow up by degrees into its completeness.\u201d<\/p>\n
Allen opts for the latter position, and the New Testament appears to substantiate that position. Furthermore, in Acts 15 at the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council, the church at Jerusalem asked the Gentile believers of Syria and Cilicia, the first churches planted among those who were former pagan Gentiles that were to have any tangible relationship with the believers in Jerusalem, that they refrain from 4 practices that would be offensive to the Hebrew Christians (Acts 15:20, 28\u201329). Such a request was taken in the right spirit by the church of Antioch, for after they read the letter \u201cthey rejoiced because of its encouragement\u201d (Acts 15:31b). Roland Allen goes on to say on page 177 and 179, speaking of the Jerusalem church, that:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe first had no right, simply on the ground that it was the first, to impose its laws and its customs upon the last. In a word, unity did not consist in outward conformity to the practices of the earliest member, but in incorporation into the body \u2026 it was the second of these two policies which Paul adopted. He refused to transplant the law and the customs of the church in Judea into the Four Provinces \u2026 The decrees of the Jerusalem Council were addressed to the churches of Syria and Cilicia. St. Paul carried them as far as Galatia, but he carried them no further. He did not enforce them in Macedonia or Achaia. Precedents are not of universal application. The conditions in Corinth or in Thessalonica were not the same as in Antioch in Syria, or even in Galatia.\u201d<\/p>\n
The point of all this is obvious. The Jerusalem Church had a unique but temporal role in the historical events of the Early Church. God used the Jewish church in Jerusalem as a beach-head from which He could launch His forces to the far corners of the Roman Empire and beyond. God did not expect the scruples of the Jerusalem Church to be universally applicable, or He would have led Paul to urge all his Gentile readers to exercise the same cultural restraints (abstaining from things offered to idols or from things strangled or from blood) as agreed upon in that original pact between the Jerusalem Church and the Antioch Church. But Paul did not. Although the Church is a unique spiritual organism, with its Head, Christ, standing above any culture, the Early Church could not help but become more Gentile in some of its cultural expressions since the vast majority of people on earth were Gentile and not Jewish.
\nThe same is still true today. The majority of Americans (and American Christians) are Gentiles. There is no country outside of Israel that has an overwhelmingly Jewish population. We can understand some of the limitations by which believers in Israel today must adapt their religious life (e.g., having to worship on Saturdays because the state government has made Sunday a normal workday). We can understand there existing a very ethnically Jewish church in Haifa, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem, since the preponderance of people there are Jewish anyway. But the USA is not Israel, and the majority of Jews in the USA are not living isolated lives in some ethnic ghetto and have been assimilated into the mainstream of middle-class America.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the leaders of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage the establishment of such synagogues and Hebrew Christian congregations when God\u2019s purpose in the Early Church was to move the Hebrew Christians toward the surrounding Gentile nations and not introspectively to pull everything all back in to itself? Since we are not living in Israel today, what is their rationale for establishing Hebrew Christian congregations in a Gentile nation? Are there not evangelical churches within two, five, or ten miles of any new Hebrew Christian convert in the USA (we have more than 330,000 churches of all kinds)? And even if there isn\u2019t such a church nearby, why start a Messianic Synagogue or a Hebrew Christian congregation? Why not just start a Bible-believing local church? Why try to make a new church Jewish instead of just Christian? What\u2019s wrong with all of us, both Jews and Gentiles, just being Christians?<\/p>\n
11. The Danger of Deception in Attempting to Lure Jews to Christianity<\/p>\n
As pointed out in a Christianity Today editorial of April 24, 1981: \u201cA small minority of Jewish Christians disguise their Christianity to attract unsuspecting Jews to accept Christianity. This is deceitful, contrary to the New Testament teaching, and unworthy of evangelical Christians.\u201d It has also been stated many times by unbelievers that they object to Messianic Jews disguising their true intent, claiming to be simply holding a Jewish party, when they are really trying to attract Jews to Christ. Instead of attracting knowledgeable Jews, such activities drive them further away and bring reproach on the Christian message. Is there something deficient in the gospel that it needs a mixture of Judaism to make it palatable to the Jewish taste? It is right and proper to show how the Christian faith is grounded in Old Testament theology and ritual, but when that system has been gloriously fulfilled by God Himself, what need is there to sustain it as though it were yet to be fulfilled?
\nWhy was Paul persecuted in the Book of Acts (e.g., Acts 13:50, 17:5\u20136, 18:12, 21:27ff)? Because he was trying to maintain Judaism? Or because he was preaching to the Jews a new faith entirely? Most of Paul\u2019s suffering came at the hands of unbelieving Jews. He spoke of his Jewish countrymen \u201cwho both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out\u201d (1 Thess. 2:15a). If Paul was still preaching a contextually relevant Judaism for those Jews who were more comfortable with their Judaistic roots, why would he say: \u201cBut I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?\u201d (Gal. 5:11a). The New Testament, written by Jews (except Luke the physician), is the greatest polemic to the Jewish people to return to their biblical roots and the \u2018flower\u2019 of those roots, Messiah Jesus. Thus the New Testament has become the greatest rebuke to the rabbinical Judaism, which stands in contrast to biblical truth. In fact, some of the strongest arguments against rabbinical Judaism were the converted Jewish apostles, disciples, and church leaders. Jesus Himself was clearly a rebuke to most of the Jewish religious leaders of His day. So was Peter. So was Paul.<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of this movement advocate such a low-key, warm, comfortable approach to sharing Christ with unbelieving fellow Jews when that was exactly the opposite approach Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the New Testament writers took? Why did the unbelieving Jews persecute Paul and the Early Church? Are not some of the movement\u2019s methods unethical at best and deceptive at worst? It appears that there is no way of getting around the offense of the cross when dealing with unbelieving Jews. How can a clear presentation of the gospel be given without either running the risk of offending an unbelieving Jew or else emasculating the message of the cross?<\/p>\n
12. The Danger of Compromising Accommodation to Keep Jews Within Christianity<\/p>\n
Most advocates of the movement say they are doing what they are doing in order to make an unbelieving Jew feel more comfortable in coming to Christ and later more \u201cat home\u201d in his quasi-Christian environment so that he will want to stay a Hebrew Christian. There may be an element of self-deception in all this. How does a 20th century Jew really know that he has rediscovered his Judaistic roots? How does he know he is celebrating the Old Testament festivals as they were observed through the centuries in conformity with the Scriptures? Who knows exactly how the Passover was celebrated in Old Testament times? With horseradish? With salt water and parsley? With a cup of Elijah? With Manischewitz wine? With modern-type matzoth? Where is the slain lamb? Where is the blood sprinkled on the doorposts? In observing the Sabbath, where are the Sabbath offerings? For the Day of Atonement, where are the sacrifices of the goats? Where is the high priest? And what about the other festivals? Do they build and live in booths for the Feast of Tabernacles? Unfortunately, James 2:10 states that the Law of Moses is not susceptible to one\u2019s picking and choosing.
\nIn considering how unbelieving Jews come to their Messiah and place their trust in Him, it seems at least from our perspective that many such Jews are won to Christ by their believing Gentle friends, neighbors, and work associates. Our experience has been that some said Hebrew Christian missionaries have a real disadvantage when it comes to working with unbelieving Jews, who view them as traitors of their own people or \u201cjust in it for the money.\u201d In these instances Gentile Christians are able to give a more natural and complete picture of Christianity without insulting or offending them. And yet if potential Hebrew Christians have no Gentiles around them, as would probably be the case in a Messianic Synagogue, they may lose much in their perception of the gospel because only Hebrew Christians have shared with them. Although proponents of the movement say such an approach makes an unbelieving Jew more comfortable in coming to Christ, at our church, Grace Community Church, we have seen hundreds of Jews come to love and follow their Messiah. It might be that most non-Christian Jews that come to Christ are not won by other Jews but through Gentiles. If that is in any way true, then what is the purpose of Messianic Synagogues? Are they not just a convenient way of helping converted Jews keep their Judaistic roots, or, even worse to help them rediscover their cultural heritage that they weren\u2019t even practicing in the first place?<\/p>\n
Issue: Do the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement think that all potential Christian Jews can come to Christ more easily through other Jews rather than through loving, sensitive Gentiles? History would say that is not always the case. Aren\u2019t they in many respects trying to resurrect some forms of Jewishness that in no way approximate Old Testament Judaism? Is there not a real danger of compromise in their anxiousness to accommodate their message to the comfortableness of their target audience? Isn\u2019t the bottom line in all that proponents of this movement are doing is simply the desire to help converted Jews keep their Judaistic roots? Aren\u2019t they Just feeding the ethnic pride and ethnocentism that is so much a part of all of us?
\nIn conclusion, we would like to restate our desire that we understand what others are thinking, why some would hold positions the Bible would appear not to sanction, and how they would answer the above 12 points from a Scriptural perspective. There appear to be grave deficiencies, mistakes, and errors in the American Messianic Synagogue Movement. We again openly invite those of varying viewpoints within this movement to respond to these concerns. We anticipate fruitful, future discussions.<\/p>\n
B. RESPONSE
\nArnold G. Fruchtenbaum
\nMay 10, 1985
\n(Revised)<\/p>\n
To the Elders of Grace Community Church:<\/p>\n
I recently received the paper you produced entitled, \u201cThe American Messianic Synagogue Movement: Deficiencies, Mistakes, and Errors in Light of the Scriptures.\u201d The purpose of this letter is to respond to a number of points raised by your paper. While many of your criticisms are valid, for the most part they apply to a few extreme elements who attempt to set up Messianic synagogues. I believe your reaction to their many unbiblical practices has led to an overreaction against any type of Jewish congregation whatsoever, and that overreaction has caused your own conclusions to contain \u201cdeficiencies, mistakes, and errors in light of the Scriptures.\u201d
\nBefore moving on to specific responses, let me spell out my own credentials in the matter. I am a Jewish believer in the Messiahship of Jesus, and I was led to the Lord through the American Board of Missions to the Jews. I did my undergraduate work in both Hebrew and Greek, and I did my seminary training at and received my degree from Dallas Theological Seminary. I have also done graduate studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I am presently a Ph.D. candidate at the New York University. I also have four published works: Jesus Was a Jew, Hebrew Christianity: Its Theology, History and Philosophy, The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, and Biblical Lovemaking: A Study of the Song of Solomon. I am presently the director of Ariel Ministries, which is a Jewish missionary society established on two principles of both evangelism and discipleship. We have five American branches (Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Bergen County, New Jersey and Baltimore) and one in Israel. The majority of our missionary staff are graduates either of Dallas Theological Seminary or Talbot Theological Seminary. The point is, those of us involved in Ariel Ministries are not lacking in theological training and\/or expertise.
\nI will comment on your paper point-by-point in the same order as found in your own paper.<\/p>\n
1. The Lack of Definition of the Title \u201cJew\u201d<\/p>\n
I do not believe that you have truly grasped the biblical definition of a Jew. Jewishness is rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, the promise that God was going to form a new nation through the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The biblical definition of a Jew, therefore, is any descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all such descendants are Jews. It does not matter what the individual Jew may believe or disbelieve; he will always remain a Jew. There have always been two types of Jews: believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. The unbelieving Jews were always part of the nation that descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and they have not ceased to be Jews because of their unbelief. But within Israel as a whole, there was always a believing element, sometimes designated as \u201cthe Remnant of Israel,\u201d or \u201cthe Israel of God.\u201d Those Jews who believed were \u201cJews\u201d to the fullest extent, because the root meaning of the word is \u201cpraise,\u201d and only these Jewish believers of any era were the true praisers of God. The passage you quoted in Romans 2:28\u201329 actually emphasizes this fact. Your claim that in the New Testament the term \u201cJew\u201d is primarily a spiritual designation is not really true to the fact, if you will simply count up the times the word is used in a concordance. You will find the majority of times that the term is used in the New Testament, it is speaking of descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in general, and not necessarily of believing Jews. Even Paul used the term \u201cJew\u201d a good number of times of those who were not believers in Christ. What Paul does with the term \u201cJew\u201d is similar to what some of the prophets did with the term \u201cIsrael.\u201d The prophets never denied that all the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were part of the people of Israel, but emphasized that the true Israel, that is, the true \u201cprince with God,\u201d is that part of Israel that were believers in God\u2019s revelation. Yet those same prophets themselves often used the designation \u201cIsrael\u201d of the non-believing portion of the nation. Paul does the same thing with the term \u201cJew.\u201d He often uses that term in reference to the non-believing portion of the nation, but still he points out that the term \u201cJew\u201d is especially relevant to those who are truly believers.
\nAs to your question, \u201cHow can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue movement give a fundamentally different meaning to the word \u2018Jew\u2019 than Paul does in Romans 2:28 and 29?\u201d, the answer is that this is not the only passage where Paul used the term, and therefore it should not be limited to that passage alone. I am not a defender of the \u201cAmerican Messianic Synagogue movement,\u201d but on this point I think that Grace Community Church has misunderstood the Scriptures. It is not true that \u201cthe only true Jews are those who are Jews spiritually,\u201d otherwise Paul would not have used that term for unbelievers. Nor does Paul even use the term \u201ctrue\u201d in that Romans passage. It might be better to see it in context as meaning that the Jewish believer is the truly completed Jew, for all Jews are true Jews if they are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
\nAlso in this segment you quoted Galatians 3:28: there can he neither Jew nor Greek, \u2026 for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Based upon that quotation, you deduce that \u201cthe modern ethnic uniqueness of the Jew is of no account.\u201d In essence, you are using that passage to try to infer that there are no longer any real distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, and all that counts is the spiritualness; but does that verse in context really say that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles are erased? In the context, the passage is dealing with justification by faith. There is no question that both Jews and Gentiles are justified the same way and that there are not two ways of justification, one for Jews and one for Gentiles: but this is all you can truly conclude from that verse. Furthermore, your citation of that verse seems to be prejudicial, because you fail to quote the verse in its entirety. It also mentions in the same verse that there is neither slave nor free, and there is neither male nor female. Do the elders of Grace Community Church teach that all distinctions between man and woman have been erased? If so, Grace Community Church cannot oppose the ordination of women and women pastors and preachers from the pulpit of Grace Community Church. Nor can Grace Community Church teach that the wife should be in subjection to the husband, since all such distinctions no longer exist in Christ. That, too, would be an invalid deduction of the meaning of that verse. The point is the same: salvation is the same for both male and female, and God did not provide two different ways of justification, one for man and one for woman. The elders of Grace Community Church should be aware that whichever way they choose to exegete and apply Galatians 3:28 on the issue of Jews and Gentiles must also be used concerning the issue of males and females in order to be consistent.
\nFor further elaboration on these points, I am enclosing a copy of my book: Hebrew Christianity. The first two chapters will elaborate on this theme. The first is, \u201cJewishness\u2014A Matter of Definitions.\u201d The second chapter is, \u201cThe Biblical Basis for the Hebrew Christian Distinctive.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. Failure to Distinguish Between Old Testament Theology and Rabbinic Theology and Tradition<\/p>\n
Your statement that much of what happens in Judaism is based upon rabbinic theology and tradition and not upon Old Testament theology is correct. That by itself does not make it right or wrong. Those things which are definitely contrary to the Scriptures, either Old or New Testament, must be rejected out of hand. A great number of things are simply neutral and, therefore, there should be freedom of choice in the matter. If some Jewish believers wish to observe some of the traditions which are neutral, they should be allowed to do so. Grace Community Church practices a number of things purely on the basis of tradition, but since they are not biblically wrong, Grace Community Church is welcome to practice them. Your statement that Jesus often rejected rabbinic traditions is true, but He rejected those that violated Scripture. There were other Jewish traditions that did not violate Scripture which He practiced, such as the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup at His last Passover, neither of which is found in Old Testament law. Your statement that Channukah finds its roots in tradition, not in Old Testament theology, is partially true, though not totally. The Feast of Channukah arose as a result of the events during the Maccabean period. Nevertheless, there is validity to the observance of the deliverance of Jerusalem from the hands of the Syrians, in that the accomplishments of the Maccabees were predicted in the Old Testament by the prophet Daniel. Furthermore, although Channukah was not a feast that originated with the Old Testament, Jesus did not have any trouble observing it, as we see him doing in John 10:22. This feast is one of those neutral elements where there should be freedom of choice. I suspect Grace Community Church observes in some way Christmas Day and Easter Sunday, but these practices are based purely upon Gentile tradition and are not rooted even in New Testament theology. Furthermore, many American Fundamentalist churches observe things such as July 4th, Mother\u2019s Day Sunday, Father\u2019s Day Sunday, among other elements (Palm Sunday). Are they sinning in doing so because they are based upon tradition? As long as these things are purely neutral and not anti-biblical, certainly the churches have the freedom to do such things. If you do not deny the American Christian the freedom to observe the American Independence Day on July 4th, there is no reason to deny the Jewish believer the right to observe Passover, which commemorates Jewish national deliverance from the Egyptians. Furthermore, that same feast, in many unique ways, emphasizes the Messiahship of Jesus, and these practices should no more be relegated to mere \u201cshadows\u201d than when Grace Community Church practices the communion service that that should be relegated as mere \u201cshadows.\u201d Grace Community Church should not deny Jewish believers the right to practice neutral traditions unless they make the same denial to all other groups, including practices found within the Grace Community Church that are also based purely on traditions. (E.g., Does the Grace Community Church forbid its members to have a Christmas tree? At least Passover has much more biblical validity than Christmas trees.)<\/p>\n
3. Failure to Properly Interpret 1 Corinthians 9:19\u201323<\/p>\n
Your claim that the establishment of Messianic Hebrew Christian congregations is based upon this passage alone is patently untrue, and makes me wonder just how much investigation the elders really did on this issue. It seems that you received some input from one or two persons who are opponents and allowed them to state their case in its entirety, and that you failed to bring in people who might have provided a different picture of the situation. Your statement that the whole system of Ecclesiology is based on this one passage for Jewish congregations is simply not true. Ariel Ministries does not insist that its branches establish congregations, but of the five American branches, two have chosen to do so (Los Angeles and San Diego). When we do choose to go this route, we do not base it on 1 Corinthians 9, which we agree has to do with the principle of evangelism and not Ecclesiology. As to your question, \u201cIs the purpose of the church to promote such cultural orientation?\u201d, the answer is no, it is not the purpose of the Church to promote any cultural orientation; but neither has the Church any mandate to forbid it if it does not violate Scripture. Furthermore, no set style of worship is presented in the New Testament. One may travel anywhere in the world and find members of local churches performing particular practices which, for the most part, are reflections of their own cultural orientation. This includes the type of worship found at Grace Community Church, where it is not likely that the outline in the Sunday morning church bulletin is taken from an order of service presented in Scripture.
\nThe enclosed book also contains chapters entitled, \u201cHebrew Christianity and Judaism,\u201d and \u201cHebrew Christianity and the Local Church,\u201d which further elaborate on these points.<\/p>\n
4. Failure to Distinguish Between the Great Principles of Law and Grace<\/p>\n
It is certainly true that many members of the \u201cAmerican Messianic Synagogue movement\u201d have failed to make such a distinction. Whether they realize it or not, or admit it or not, many of their principles are based upon Covenant Theology and often on no theology. Ariel Ministries is a dispensational missionary society and we take the distinction between law and grace quite seriously. We strongly teach that the Jewish believer is free from the law and, therefore, has no obligation to keep any of the 613 commandments of the law. Freedom from the law actually means two things: first, the freedom from the obligation to observe any of the 613 commandments; and, secondly, the freedom to observe any of these 613 commandments that one chooses to observe on the basis of his freedom in Christ, always recognizing that what he chooses to keep has nothing to do with his justification or sanctification. Even Paul and others, after their own acceptance of Jesus, did not feel it inconsistent when they chose to continue observing various aspects of the Mosaic Law. If the Jewish Apostles had the freedom of choice, why would Grace Community Church deny that same freedom of choice to twentieth-century Jewish believers?
\nStatements in this section, such as \u201cto encourage a not yet converted Hebrew or a brand new Hebrew Christian to begin looking back to the outer trappings of a system of law could run the risk of damning their souls,\u201d seem to be inconsistent with the doctrine of eternal security, to which Grace Community Church adheres. To say that the practice of Jewish customs and traditions and Jewish-style worship services by Jewish believers could result in \u201cSatan, like a bird, (swooping) down and (snatching) the seed, the Word, from the soil before it has a chance to germinate,\u201d seems to show an ignorance of Jewish evangelism. Perhaps such a case has happened, but never in my experience or that of any Ariel staff member. In fact, the result has been quite the opposite. Furthermore, it is not the purpose of a Jewish-Christian congregation necessarily \u201cto foist the trappings of law upon the uninitiated,\u201d but rather to allow the Jewish believer to practice the worship of the Messiah in his own style of culture and music, just as we would allow the people of Grace Community Church to do it their way. As to your question, \u201cWhat is to stop them from sacrificing goats if they want to?\u201d, the answer is that this would violate Scripture. Again, freedom from the law means the freedom to practice those aspects of the law that in no way violate New Testament teaching. Freedom from the law means that the Jewish person is now free to eat pork. It does not mean that he has to eat pork. If he chooses to continue refraining from the eating of pork, he is not sinning as long as he theologically realizes that those who choose to eat pork are not sinning either.
\nIn the enclosed book there is also a chapter on, \u201cHebrew Christianity and the Law of Moses,\u201d which will answer the question even further.<\/p>\n
5. Failure to Appreciate the Implications of the Atonement<\/p>\n
I fail to see any strength in your argument in this section. We agree wholeheartedly that the death of Christ broke down the middle wall of partition, uniting Jews and Gentiles into one body. Therefore, a local body should allow for both types of members: Jews and Gentiles. Yet there have been Gentile-Christian churches that have refused to allow Jewish members, and it was because of that type of a situation that Leopold Cohn, the founder of the American Board of Missions to the Jews, established a messianic congregation in Brooklyn, though there were churches nearby. On the other hand, if a Jewish-Christian congregation will not allow Gentiles to join, that would be equally sinful; but for the most part, this is not the case. The two congregations founded by Ariel Ministries, while the majority of the membership is Jewish, contain a good number of Gentile members as well\u2014and not necessarily only Gentiles who happen to be married to Jews; nor is the eldership limited to Jews.
\nI would strongly recommend that the elders of Grace Community Church pay a visit to our congregation in Los Angeles, headed by Louis Lapides, and attend the Sunday morning worship service. I would then challenge you to find anything that is clearly unbiblical, either in the composition of the congregation, the content of it, or its style of worship or teaching. That would at least give the elders of Grace Community Church some first-hand experience so that they can make their comments on the basis of knowledge, because much of what you seem to say is based upon hearsay and\/or limited investigation.<\/p>\n
6. Failure to Understand Progressive Doctrinal Revelation<\/p>\n
As a dispensational organization, we agree with you in every way that a change took place at Pentecost, and that began a new age of the Spirit; but I am not so sure that your application of Mark 2:22 is really valid. You use that verse to say, \u201cJesus is claiming that things will be different in the New Testament age, in that we cannot regress to Old Testament forms.\u201d Actually, in that context, He is not dealing with the distinction between the Old Testament age and the New Testament age. In fact, while He was living, the law was still in effect, and every jot and tittle of the law still had to be kept. In the context of Mark 2:22, the issue is Pharisaic Judaism. The point He is making here is that He did not come to either pour His teachings into the mold of Pharisaism, nor did He come to patch up Pharisaic Judaism, but He is presenting something entirely new. The congregations of Ariel Ministries in no way support Pharisaic Judaism.
\nFurthermore, the purpose of these congregations is not to urge \u201cHebrew Christians to rediscover their Jewish roots,\u201d since such rediscovery really is necessary for Gentiles and not for Jews. The purpose is not to rediscover these Jewish roots, but to provide an environment in which such Jewish roots can be practiced and maintained, just as Grace Community Church provides the environment for their Gentile members to do the same. Your statement that \u201cJesus claims that such attempted efforts will be disastrous,\u201d is not a valid exegesis of Mark 2:22.<\/p>\n
7. Failure to Understand the Unique Privileges, Responsibilities and Limitations Put on the Jews by God<\/p>\n
For me, this section of the paper was the most troubling for two reasons. First, it shows a major gap in dispensational theology in dealing with Israel Present. Dispensationalism has a well-defined theology concerning Israel Past and Israel Future, but it has failed to consistently apply the dispensational principle of keeping Israel and the Church distinct at all times in developing a theology of Israel Present. (That is why I have chosen the following topic as my Ph.D. dissertation for NYU: Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology.) That is Dispensationalism\u2019s major failing (I speak as a Dispensationalist), and it is reflected in this section of your paper. The second reason this section is so troubling to me is that, to be blunt, it smacks of anti-Semitism. This is not merely a Jewish reaction to what was said, it is also the conclusion of some Gentile readers of the same paper. The elders of Grace Community Church will allow Korean churches, Chinese churches, and Italian churches, but the Jews are not allowed to have a church!
\nThe paper uses a lot of words to defend this thesis, but there is a decided lack of Scripture to prove it. The Scriptures quoted in this section deal with aspects of Israel Past and Israel Future; but when you try to deal with Israel Present and conclude that Jews cannot have their congregations while everyone else may, you do not quote a single passage of Scripture to prove your claim. This is poor theology indeed! The following are statements made in the paper which are very troubling, and for which no Scriptural evidence is provided: \u201cJews are unable to start ethnic local churches like all other ethnic peoples of the world are free to do. The Jews do not have that right or freedom.\u201d (Why not? Where is there a clear biblical statement that does not allow Jews to do such a thing, while every other nationality in the world may?); \u201cThere is no danger of any other ethnic people drifting back into Judaism.\u201d (True, but Italians could drift back into Catholicism, so should they not be forbidden to have Italian ethnic churches? Former Hindus are in danger of drifting back into Hinduism, and so should not the prohibition also be applied to the establishment of Indian ethnic churches? Arabs are in danger of drifting back into Islam; therefore, should not the Arabs be forbidden their ethnic church?) The danger of drifting back to a former religious system applies to more than just the Jews; yet Grace Community Church allows the others to have their ethnic churches, but the Jews may not. Frankly, that is anti-Semitism.
\nIt is very possible to point to an example of someone who was in a messianic Jewish congregation and who drifted back into Judaism, but that is not necessarily the fault of the Jewish congregation. In our experience, we have also seen Jewish-Christian members of Bible-teaching churches similar to Grace Community Church who have also drifted back into Judaism. Should we then blame it on the pattern adopted by that particular Bible church? The point is, the danger is there either way. The reason for the danger does not lie with the congregation as such, but rather with the individual, his relationship to God, and his response to the pull from his past life. On the other hand, 99 percent of the Jewish people who are won by various ways stay with the faith. Ariel\u2019s two congregations have gone a long way towards establishing these believers in their faith and grounding them in the Word of God. Be careful not to apply the failings of some messianic congregations to the whole movement, unless you are willing to be consistent and apply the failings of some Bible churches to the whole Bible church movement.
\nAnti-Semitism has a tendency to lead to overstatements, and your paper is guilty of this. You ask Jewish believers how they can start Jewish-Christian congregations, because, \u201cdon\u2019t they know all the Gentile Christians of the world are watching them?\u201d Are you really serious here? Are all the Christians of the entire world really watching us Jewish believers? I wish it were only true, because we could use the extra attention! In case your statement is true, and all the Gentile Christians of the entire world are watching us, then let them learn the lesson well: A Jew can believe in Jesus and not cease to be a Jew. Just as Jews had obligations in the past and will have obligations in the future, Jews have obligations even today. One of the ways we are helping to fulfill those obligations is through the maintenance of the Jewish identity, which God Himself promised would never be lost.
\nAnother overstatement is, \u201cDon\u2019t they see that such irresponsible actions on their part have the potential of corrupting the doctrine and confusing the practices of any other ethnic church around the world?\u201d This sentence totally confuses and floors me. You do not bother to explain just how this is a possibility. In what way does the establishment of Jewish congregations corrupt doctrine that is unique to Jewish congregations and is not true of any other? I doubt very much that other ethnic churches, such as the Koreans, the Italians, and the Chinese, which Grace Community Church seems to allow, will in any way be confused by Jews worshipping in their way. If the Koreans are free to be Koreans, Jews should be free to be Jews. The confusion is really only in the minds of those who put this paper together.<\/p>\n
8. The Misunderstanding of Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s Day<\/p>\n
We agree with you wholeheartedly that the Sabbath is no longer the obligatory day of rest or the obligatory day of worship, and that such obligation was done away with the law. However, the New Testament neither goes on to make the first day of the week (Sunday) a new type of Sabbath, nor does it command that one is to worship and rest upon that day. You keep referring to Sunday as being \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day,\u201d but the first day of the week is never called by that term. Even your citation of Revelation 1:10 is not exegetically correct. First of all, the term \u201cLord\u201d in this passage is not a noun, but an adjective in the Greek text. More literally, it would read, \u201ca lordy day.\u201d There is no evidence that the occurrence took place on the first day of the week, and it could just as easily have been on the seventh day of the week. Furthermore, the emphasis of Revelation 1:10 is not upon a specific day of the week, but rather upon the kind of day it was for John: it was on that day that the Spirit of God inspired him to be able to see the revelations of God and to record the Book of Revelation. The New Testament never uses the expression \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d for Sunday, and the first day of the week is never called \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day.\u201d In fact, the New Testament pattern is that no day of the week is to be placed above another, and every believer has an option to choose. Paul wrote that one man can esteem one day special, another man can esteem every day alike, and both are biblically correct and have the freedom in Christ to do so. There is no question that the Church is commanded to congregate together, but no specific day of the week was mandated for this. Every congregation has the absolute freedom to choose what day of the week they wish to meet. Grace Community Church has the freedom to choose Sunday, and the Ariel congregation in Los Angeles has the freedom to choose Sunday; but the Ariel congregation in San Diego chose Friday, and it is an equally valid choice since each one has the freedom in Christ to choose accordingly.
\nFurthermore, your citation of Acts 20:7 to prove a Sunday observance is not correct. The passage does say the first of the week, but you are ignoring that for Jews the first day of the week happened to be sundown Saturday until sundown Sunday and did not begin with the midnight hour between Saturday and Sunday. The Jewish believers did not meet Sunday morning as the Grace Community Church has chosen to do (and you have the freedom to do so); they met Saturday night. The meeting referred to in Acts 20:7 occurred on a Saturday night and not on a Sunday morning. A careful exegesis of verse seven will clearly bring out that point. The verse says, And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them \u2026 So far, the verse has stated that the church got together on the first day of the weak, which, for Paul, as well as for all Jews, began sundown Saturday. The very next day would have been the Gentile Sunday. He would have been traveling on Sunday morning rather than worshipping on Sunday morning. The proof of all this is in the final phrase of verse seven, \u2026 and prolonged his speech until midnight. This makes perfect sense if it is realized that the meeting of the church occurred Saturday night and not Sunday morning. If Grace Community Church wishes to believe that the meeting of Acts 20:7 occurred Sunday morning at 11:00 a.m., they would have to claim that Paul preached for 13 hours straight until midnight on Sunday! That would certainly make the whole passage totally nonsensical.
\nThe simple exegesis of Acts 20:7 is that the church at Troas met on the first day of the week, Saturday night after sundown, and Paul was planning to leave the city the next morning, or Sunday morning. Because the service started at night, and because of other elements involved in the worship, Paul began preaching and continued to preach past midnight. The fact that the church was meeting at night and not in the morning becomes rather evident in two ways: first, Paul preached until midnight, and secondly, in verse eight, it was necessary to light lamps in the upper room where they were gathered.
\nThose messianic congregations that insist on a Friday night or Saturday morning worship are wrong if they make it a requirement; but if they merely make it optional, they have the total freedom to do so. Those who absolutely require Sunday worship are equally wrong, because they have no biblical validity. If Grace Community Church wishes to use Acts 20:7 as the rule of thumb, then they will have to insist on a Saturday night worship, not a Sunday morning worship! The clear teaching of the New Testament is that, in this Dispensation of Grace, it is not obligatory that a particular day be set aside, and there is freedom in the Lord in the matter; therefore, let each individual congregation make its own choice. To claim, as the paper does, that the \u201cinsistence of all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, in the early church to observe the Lord\u2019s day (Sunday) rather than the Sabbath (Saturday) is proof positive that all Christians perceived the day change as more than just a matter of preference, convenience, or sentimentality,\u201d is, frankly, false from several perspectives. It is, first of all, historically false; the historical records of Jewish Christianity in the land for the first four centuries show that Jewish believers, as a rule, met together on Saturday night and not on Sunday. It is also theologically untrue, because Sunday is never referred to as \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day,\u201d and there is no so-called \u201cproof positive\u201d that the day of worship was changed.
\nConcerning your question, \u201cWhy do the proponents \u2026 encourage their Hebrew Christian constituents to reassert the Sabbath over against the Lord\u2019s day?\u201d, if they truly encourage people to reassert the Sabbath over against any other day, then they are wrong; but if they are merely giving Jewish believers the option of which day to choose, then they are right. Those Jewish congregations that insist that the Sabbath must be the day of worship are wrong, but those Gentile congregations that insist that Sunday must be the day of worship are equally wrong.
\nFrankly, it is very evident that the elders of Grace Community Church need to re-examine the whole issue, both historically and theologically. You would do well to read a recent book written by several biblical scholars entitled, From Sabbath to the Lord\u2019s Day, edited by D. A. Carson and published by Zondervan. None of these scholars are Jewish and, therefore, they have no special ax to grind; but they carefully and scholarly record both the history and theology of these two things. I think you could learn much from it.<\/p>\n
9. The Misunderstanding of Our Freedom in Christ<\/p>\n
I am not so sure who is misunderstanding the freedom one has in Christ. You are absolutely correct that the law is done away and that no Jewish believer has any obligation to keep dietary laws or special days. He is free in Christ from these things, but he is also free in Christ to observe such things that do not violate clear New Testament teaching. It seems that it is the elders of Grace Community Church who do not want to permit Jewish believers their freedom in Christ to do these things. It is almost as if the elders will not be satisfied until a Jewish believer, raised in Orthodox Judaism, publicly eats pork. Is it not enough that he states that he does not believe that eating pork is a sin, but chooses to refrain from it? Would the elders of Grace Community Church insist that he has to eat pork? Is it not enough if he simply proclaims that the abstention from pork is an option and has no redeeming value? If Grace Community Church uses their freedom in Christ to meet on Sunday, observe Christmas, erect Christmas trees, paint Easter eggs, etc., on what grounds do they refuse the Jewish believer to use his freedom in Christ to meet on Friday and observe Passover, among other things?<\/p>\n
10. Misunderstanding of the Unique but Temporal Role of the Jerusalem Church in Early Christian History<\/p>\n
The Church of Jerusalem was not the only Jewish congregation, as is evident from Galatians 1:22. This passage mentions other churches of Judea that did not know Paul by face, which would not have been a true statement as far as the Church of Jerusalem is concerned. It is true that from Acts eight onward, the Church moved away from a decidedly Jewish flavor, but this was due to a simple truth: the majority of believers, after awhile, were Gentiles; therefore, the Church began to reflect the Gentile culture. That by itself did not mean that Jewish congregations were forbidden from springing up outside of Jerusalem. Even in a Gentile majority, Jewish congregations that practiced a Jewish form of worship and culture continued to exist as late as the fourth century. (For more information, see The Church of the Circumcision by Bagatti, published by the Franciscan Press in Jerusalem.) Certainly, your statement is true that, \u201cGod never intended the church to remain Jewish\u201d; but He also never intended it to become strictly Gentile either, for Romans 11 clearly promised a remnant of Jews according to the election of grace. The existence of a Gentile majority did not by itself keep a Jewish congregation from maintaining its Jewish flavor, as the Gentiles maintain a Gentile flavor. I believe you are reading too much into what is a purely historical process recorded in the Book of Acts.
\nYour paper states that, \u201cIt was not God\u2019s intent that all the churches springing up around the Roman Empire be viewed identically by Him or by each other.\u201d This is a true statement, but you seem to fail to apply it consistently. It is true that God did not intend all the churches to have a Jewish identity, but nor did He intend for all the churches to have a Gentile identity. The way the paper is presented, this truth is applied only to the Gentile Church and not to the Jewish Church.
\nYou then spend quite a bit of time basing your theology upon a book written by Roland Allen. That book is not Scripture, nor do the passages you quote from the book cite any Scripture. Be that as it may, nothing in your quotations, by themselves, rule out the allowance for Jewish believers to have a Jewish-style congregation. They only disallow Jewish believers from enforcing their style on Gentile believers. That is a two-way street. Gentile believers have no right to enforce their style on Jewish believers either. Roland Allen is right when he states that the Jerusalem Church had no authority to impose its laws and customs upon the new Gentile churches springing up around the Empire. By the same token, the Gentile churches in the Empire had no right to enforce their own laws and customs upon the Jerusalem Church. It would appear that Grace Community Church is trying to impose its laws and customs upon Jewish congregations, and in effect rule them out. You are correct in stating that, \u201cGod did not expect the scruples of the Jerusalem church to be universally applicable, or He would have led Paul to urge all His Gentile readers to exercise the same cultural restraints.\u201d The other side of the coin is equally true, however. God did not expect the scruples of the Gentile believers to be universally applied to all Jewish believers. Paul allowed Gentiles to be Gentiles and Jews to be Jews, and Grace Community Church should do no less.
\nIt is true, as you say, that the majority of American Christians are Gentiles, but there is really no distinctive American Gentile culture as such. Within the American culture are various other cultures. There are Black churches, Swedish churches, etc. By the same token, there could be within the American context Jewish churches as well.
\nAs to your question, \u201cWhy not just start a Bible-believing local church?\u201d, the answer is that the Jewish congregations we have started are Bible-believing churches. As to your question, \u201cWhat\u2019s wrong with all of us, both Jews and Gentiles, just being Christians?\u201d, the answer is nothing; but the style of worship and music that Grace Community Church has chosen for itself is not \u201cChristian,\u201d since the Bible does not portray any specific style or order of worship. The format followed by Grace Community Church is simply \u201cGentile.\u201d If Grace Community Church can be a Bible-believing church with a Gentile form of worship, then other congregations can be Bible-believing congregations with a Jewish form of worship. It is as simple as that. The problem is, when you ask us to be more \u201cChristian,\u201d you are really asking us to be more \u201cGentile.\u201d That is the point that you seem to fail to realize.<\/p>\n
11. The Danger of Deception in Attempting to Lure Jews to Christianity<\/p>\n
It is true that \u201ca small minority of Jewish Christians disguise their Christianity to attract unsuspecting Jews to Christianity. This is deceitful, contrary to the New Testament teaching, and unworthy of evangelical Christians.\u201d But that is true of a minority and not a majority of congregations, and the misconduct of a few cannot be used to denounce the many. Most Jewish congregations, especially the two founded by Ariel Ministries, in no way try to disguise their Christianity, and the word is even used in their literature. Your statement that, \u201cIt has also been stated many times by unbelievers that they object to messianic Jews disguising their true intent, claiming to be simply holding a Jewish party, when they are really trying to attract Jews to Christ,\u201d is giving too much credence to what these unbelievers claim. Jewish unbelievers find many things objectionable, and they often state things about Jewish believers which are simply not true. Because they have already decreed Jewish believers to be non-Jews, they deny Jewish believers any right to practice anything that is Jewish. When a Jewish believer insists on practicing Jewish things, the unbelieving Jews claim that such a Jewish believer is trying to be deceitful. There is no truth to that kind of an accusation coming from the side of unbelievers, and it is a surprise that the elders of Grace Community Church give such accusations such heavy credence. Furthermore, your claim that, \u201cInstead of attracting knowledgeable Jews, such activities drive them further away and bring reproach on the Christian message,\u201d is patently untrue. Once again, I challenge the elders of Grace Community Church to attend either our Los Angeles branch or San Diego branch. See what the results have been, how knowledgeable Jews have been attracted to the gospel through us and how they have become believers, when they never would have thought of entering Grace Community Church as unbelievers.
\nThe point is, the purpose of a Jewish-Christian congregation is not merely to evangelize Jewish people, though that is part of its mission; it also evangelizes unbelieving Gentiles, for that, too, is part of its mission. The main purpose is to teach Scripture, to worship, and to fellowship. They have chosen the Jewish format, which is just as valid as the Gentile format followed by Grace Community Church. Our Jewish congregations do not \u201csustain\u201d the Old Testament system \u201cas though it were yet to be fulfilled.\u201d When we celebrate the various Jewish holy days, we do so because they have been fulfilled by the Messiah. We bring out the messianic implications quite heavily, and it is because of this that Jewish people are coming to the Messiah.
\nIt is true that Paul was not persecuted because he was trying to maintain Judaism, but it is not true that \u201che was preaching to the Jews a new faith entirely.\u201d He was certainly preaching Jesus as the Messiah, but in defending his faith he frequently referred back to it as a fulfillment of the old faith, as he did at his trial when he was being condemned by the Pharisees and Sadducees. The reason Paul was being persecuted was because he was proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah, not because he was preaching a brand new faith entirely. If his faith was entirely new, it would have been something in contradistinction to the Old Testament rather than in fulfillment of it.
\nAs to your question, \u201cWhy do the proponents of this movement advocate such a low-key, warm, comfortable approach to sharing Christ around fellow believing Jews when that was exactly the opposite approach Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the New Testament writers took?\u201d, the answer is that not all proponents advocate a low-key approach, and most congregations that I am aware of are quite open on the issue. Contrasted with the way you worded it, I think Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the New Testament writers used a loving way to propagate the gospel to their own Jewish people. I do not see where they ever asked them to become Gentiles. As to your question, \u201cAre not some of the movement\u2019s methods unethical at best and deceptive at worst?\u201d, I suspect that you might find such practices in some areas. You will also find unethical and deceptive practices in Gentile churches, but that does not negate the right of Gentile churches to exist. Again, I challenge the elders of Grace Community Church to attend our Los Angeles branch and point out what they find to be either unethical or deceptive. I can state quite dogmatically that you will find nothing either deceptive or unethical. It is true that it is difficult to make a clear presentation of the gospel without offending an unbelieving Jew; but we accept the offense that the gospel might present, and we proclaim it anyway. That is no reason why we need to add Gentile symbols which might be offensive in a way never intended by Scripture. If the unbelieving Jewish person is offended by the gospel, this we cannot compromise, and we would let him be offended; but there are other areas where offenses are not necessary, and such things can easily be put away. At none of our branches is the gospel ever compromised for any reason.<\/p>\n
12. The Danger of Compromising Accommodation to Keep Jews Within Christianity<\/p>\n
I am not so sure that it is \u201cmost advocates\u201d who say that the purpose for such congregations is to make an unbelieving Jew feel more comfortable in coming to Christ. At least in our framework, that is a secondary purpose. Our primary purpose still remains to allow Jewish believers a Bible-believing church in which a Jewish style of worship is conducted. Your first paragraph asks a series of questions which I find highly irrelevant. How does Grace Community Church know exactly how communion was practiced in the early church? With little, cute, round wafers? With white bread cut into squares? With matzos? Do you really believe the early church used Welch\u2019s grape juice? What about the agape meal? If you find my questions irrelevant, so are yours. The lack of knowledge of exactly how something was done in a certain century does not negate a form of practice in the twentieth century, insofar as that practice does not militate against the clear teaching of Scripture.
\nYour description as to how Gentile Christians can do the work of Jewish evangelism better than Jewish Christians shows a lack of experience in the area. I, too, have seen Jewish people come to the Lord through regular Gentile churches. I have also seen many Jewish people, who have come to such a service leave in disgust. Many others will not even think of attending. The point is, there is no single best way of reaching Jews for the Lord, and all of these are valid options. There are Jews who are reached through a congregational approach who would never have been reached by a Gentile-Christian church approach. There are Jews who are won to Christ by other Jewish believers who would never listen to a Gentile believer expounding his faith. Human success rate is never a criterion for the validity of other approaches in other areas.
\nThat completes my discussion on the twelve issues you have raised. Again, the enclosed book, Hebrew Christianity, will answer some of these very questions in more detail, and with more exegetical grounds.
\nI will be glad to meet with you face-to-face anytime you would like to discuss these issues further, since I do not live that far from you. But again, as your paper reads now, it is filled with deficiencies, mistakes, and errors in the light of the Scriptures. And you need to re-evaluate your paper before it has spread too far, and everybody takes it to be the official and final position of Grace Community Church.<\/p>\n
Yours for the salvation of Israel,<\/p>\n
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
\nDirector<\/p>\n
Postscript: A letter from Grace Community Church acknowledged receipt of the above response, but did not in turn respond to the content or arguments presented above. Nor did the elders of the Church accept the invitation to discuss these issues face-to-face.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX IV<\/p>\n
A SURVEY OF THE HEBREW CHRISTIAN\/MESSIANIC JEWISH EPISTLES<\/p>\n
THE BOOK OF HEBREWS<\/p>\n
The Book of Hebrews is the only epistle in which the author is not named. There have been at least eleven different suggestions as to who the author might be, but most of the controversy centers around the question as to whether Paul was or was not the author. This work takes no position as to the identity of the author, but two things about the author can be deduced from what he wrote. First, he must have been a Jewish believer because of his intimate knowledge of Mosaic Judaism and certain Jewish traditions outside the Scriptures. Second, he was a second generation Jewish believer, because he excluded himself from the apostles who were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus (2:3\u20134).
\nMore knowledge can be gained about the recipients of the epistle than the author. First, they were obviously Jewish, and the author writes with full expectation that his readers will respect the Old Testament. The whole back drop of the letter is from Jewish history and religion. Second, they were Jewish believers, because only these would be in danger of going back into Judaism. Furthermore, the author uses terminology which could only be true of believers, such as brethren (3:1, 12); beloved (6:9); partakers of a heavenly calling (3:1); partakers of Christ (3:14); and he gives certain warnings which were applicable only to believers (3:12\u201313). Third, like the author, they were second generation Jewish believers, since they had heard the gospel from eyewitnesses, but were not eyewitnesses themselves (2:3\u20134). Fourth, they had been believers for some time, yet had remained or regressed into spiritual immaturity (5:11\u201314). Fifth, they obviously knew the author personally (13:19, 23). Sixth, at the time the epistle was written, they were experiencing heavy persecution and were wavering in their faith and considering going back into Judaism, at least temporarily, in order to escape the persecution (10:32\u201338).
\nAs for the location of the Jewish believers, at least twelve suggestions have been made, but only three have any real merit. The first is Rome; however, few in Rome would have been evangelized by eyewitnesses (2:3\u20134) and, being so far from Jerusalem, the pull to return to the sacrificial system would not have been as strong as it appears to be in the book. The second key suggestion is Jerusalem; however, this, too, seems unlikely, since the believers of Jerusalem would have heard Christ speak and this group had not (2:3\u20134). Furthermore, the readers were known for their charity (6:10; 10:34), whereas the saints of Jerusalem were known for their poverty (Acts 11:29; Rom. 15:25\u201327; 1 Cor. 16:1\u20138). Finally, the author makes it clear that there has been no martyrdom among his readers (12:4); but by then the Church of Jerusalem had already lost Stephen (Acts 7:59\u201360) and James the Apostle (Acts 12:2), among others (Acts 8:1\u20133; 26:10). The third suggestion is perhaps the best: the epistle was written to the Jewish believers of Judea outside Jerusalem, which very early had established a plurality of churches of their own (Gal. 1:22). Because of their location, they were undergoing severe persecution, short of martyrdom, and the sacrificial system was a real pull because of their proximity to Jerusalem.
\nThe occasion and purpose of the epistle can be gleaned from the letter itself. Jewish believers were experiencing tremendous persecution and were seriously contemplating going back into Judaism, at least temporarily, until the persecution subsided. Afterwards, they felt they could start the spiritual life all over again and, by so doing, they could erase the sin of their apostasy. This is the option they thought they had, but the writer will explain that they had no such option. If they were to go back to the sacrificial system, they will identify themselves with the same generation that rejected the Messiahship of Jesus, and this will put them under the judgment of A.D. 70, the judgment for the unpardonable sin. The author is writing to warn them against going back because of the consequences. He wants to do at least three things in his epistle: first, to combat possible apostasy (2:1\u20134; 10:19\u201325); second, to encourage them to press on to spiritual maturity (5:11\u201314; 10:32\u201339); and, third, to comfort them in their persecutions (11:1\u201312:3).
\nThe author\u2019s method is twofold. First, he wants to show them the superiority of the Messiah to the three pillars of Judaism: angels, Moses, and the Levitical Priesthood. This he does by way of contrast. This is not a contrast between the bad and the good, for both are from God. The contrast is between the good and the better. Second, while going through his argumentation in a very logical manner, he makes five deviations from his logical order to give five warnings. Each of these five warnings are based on something he has just said, which is now applied to the particular situation of his readers.
\nThe Book of Hebrews has two main divisions: first, the superiority of the Son in His person and work (1:1\u201310:18); and, second, the practical application of the superiority of the Son in the life of the believers (10:19\u201313:25).<\/p>\n
I. THE SUPERIORITY OF THE SON IN HIS PERSON AND WORK\u20141:1\u201310:18<\/p>\n
A. The Theme\u20141:1\u20133<\/p>\n
In the past, God chose to reveal Himself in divers portions and divers manners. By various portions, the author emphasizes the quantitative aspect, or what theologians like to call progressive revelation. Sometimes it was as little as Obadiah (one chapter), or as much as Isaiah (66 chapters). From the first to the last book of the Old Testament, a thousand years transpired. By various manners, the author emphasizes the qualitative aspect, in that the revelation of the Old Testament came in various ways (creative acts, patriarchs, angels, prophets, shepherds, priests, kings) and in various forms (laws, visions, types, prophecies). In these last days (New Testament times), God revealed Himself through the Messianic Son. This is followed by seven statements to show the eligibility of the Son to be the final Revealer. First, he is the heir of all things, which emphasizes the Son as the Lord of the universe and the goal of history. Second, through the Son the ages were made, which emphasizes the Son as the beginning point of the universe and the beginning of history. It includes all that exists in the world under the aspect of time throughout its successive time periods (ages). Third, He is the brightness of God\u2019s glory, which pictures the Son as the Shechinah Glory, which was true of Him before all history. Fourth, the Son is the image of the Father\u2019s substance, emphasizing the Son as the precise reproduction of the divine essence of the Father, which was also true of Him before all history. Fifth, He upholds all things by the word of His power, picturing the Son as the Sustainer and Governor of the universe, which is His work throughout all history. Sixth, He made purification for sin, emphasizing the Son as the Redeemer of man, which is His role in history. Seventh, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High, which emphasizes His present position as the Sovereign of man, an act that took place at a certain point in history when His work on earth was finished.
\nWith the theme now clearly stated, the author shows the superiority of the Son to the three pillars of Judaism.<\/p>\n
B. The Superiority of the Son to Angels\u20141:4\u20132:18<\/p>\n
1. The Superiority of the Son to the Angels by Virtue of His Deity\u20141:4\u201314<\/p>\n
The author begins with a prepositional statement of the Son\u2019s superiority to angels (1:4) and this is followed by seven citations from the Old Testament to prove it (1:5\u201313). The first citation is from Psalm 2:7, showing the Son\u2019s positional relationship to the Father in that this one alone was declared to be the unique Son of God. While angels are called sons of God collectively, not one angel is ever called \u201cson of God\u201d individually, as is the case with the Messiah. The second citation is from 2 Samuel 7:14, relating the Son as the head of the Davidic Covenant and the future messianic ruler over Israel. No angel could ever be the messianic ruler over Israel. The third citation is from Psalm 97:7, which calls upon the angels to worship the Son. The fact that He is worshipped by angels shows that He is deity and they are not. Furthermore, the worshipped is superior to the worshipper. The fourth citation is from Psalm 104:4, which pictures the angels as servants, and servants are subservient to the master. Angles were created to serve the Son. The fifth citation is from Psalm 45:7\u20138, which emphasizes the deity of the Son and His authority in the future Messianic Kingdom. This emphasizes the eternity of the Son in contrast to the transitoriness of angels. The sixth citation is from Psalm 102:25\u201327, picturing the Son as the unchanging Creator, sovereign over the changes of the universe, which is not true of any angel. The seventh citation is from Psalm 110:1, which pictures the Son as enthroned in glory and seated at the right hand of God, a position not shared by any angel. The author then draws his conclusion, giving the status of angels (1:14). Angels are still busy doing their work in the role of servants, and they are servants of the Son ministering to believers inheriting salvation.<\/p>\n
2. The First Warning: The Danger of Drifting\u20142:1\u20134<\/p>\n
In light of the superiority of the Son to the angels, there is an application to the Jewish believers to whom the author is writing. Because of the superiority of the Son, they must pay close attention to His revelation, lest they drift away from it like an untied boat. Revelation that came through the Son carries far more solemn obligations for the recipients than does revelation mediated through angels. If the law, which was mediated through angels, proved firm and disobedience brought physical punishment, how can they hope to escape physical punishment if they neglect a salvation mediated through the Son? Salvation is obviously in their possession, but they are neglecting it and becoming indifferent to it. Yet, this was a salvation first announced by the Messiah Himself, witnessed to by the eyewitness accounts of the Apostles and authenticated through signs, wonders, powers and gifts of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
3. The Superiority of the Son to Angels by Virtue of His Humanity\u20142:5\u20139<\/p>\n
Since angels are servants, they cannot be rulers over the age to come (2:5), the future Messianic Kingdom. The author then quotes Psalm 8:5\u20137 (2:6\u20138) to prove that God gave to man the dominion of the earth. Adam was created a little lower than the angels and was given this dominion; but he lost it through sin, and today the earth is being ruled by angels: Satan, the prince of this world, and his demons. Man\u2019s promised dominion has never been fulfilled, so we do not yet see all things put under His feet; but the Messiah regained the dominion for man (2:9), and man will be associated with Him in His messianic rule. The author\u2019s argument is that in Genesis (1:26\u201327), sovereignty over the earth was promised to man and not to angels. That sovereignty was lost through the fall, although the title still belongs to man. The Messiah, the representative man, has won this sovereignty back for man and this will be exercised in the Messianic Kingdom. This rule was never promised to angels. Although when He became man He was made lower than the angels, as a man He will rule the earth and they will not. In that sense, even in His humanity, as in His deity, He is superior to angels.<\/p>\n
4. The Superiority of the Son to Angels by Virtue of the Kind of Salvation He Provided\u20142:10\u201318<\/p>\n
The author now answers the question as to why the Messiah had to die (2:10a), pointing out that when He chose to provide salvation for fallen man, He chose to bypass fallen angels. He then gives four reasons for the incarnation and the cross (2:10b\u201318). The first reason was to manifest divine grace (2:10b\u201313). The Messiah became a man so that the sanctifier and the sanctified could be united and He could call them brethren (2:10b\u201311). The author then quotes Psalm 22:22 and Isaiah 8:17\u201318 to show the Messiah\u2019s identification with man (2:12\u201313). The second reason was to overcome the prince of death (2:14). At the incarnation the Son took hold of human nature without its sin and held it as something additional; He added to His divine nature flesh and blood. This rendered Him capable of dying, and by means of death He rendered Satan\u2019s power inoperative as far as believers are concerned. The third reason was to free the believer from the fear of death (2:15). The fear of death enslaves man, but the believer is freed both from the fear of death and from death itself, because, for the believer, death is no longer a punishment but the means of entering heaven. The fourth reason was to help man (2:16\u201318). The sphere of the Messiah\u2019s work was man and not angels (2:16). For this reason, the Messiah did not take on \u201cangelanity,\u201d to coin a word, but only humanity. He took on a specific type of humanity; he came from the seed of Abraham; He became a Jew. The scope of Messiah\u2019s work was redemption (2:17), and He was made like unto his brethren, that is, He became a Jew for three reasons: to become merciful, which is an attribute of humanity; to become faithful, in the administration of His priestly functions; and, to become a priest, a function that required humanity. In this way, He made propitiation for the sins of the people by satisfying the righteous demands of God. Now there is an application of the Messiah\u2019s work to individual men in the conflict of life (2:18), in that He can help us in our temptations, having experienced these things Himself. His point in this section is that the Redeemer is superior to the redeemed, but the redeemed are superior to those for whom no redemption was provided. In this sense, the Son is superior to angels because of the nature of the salvation which He has provided.<\/p>\n
C. The Superiority of the Son to Moses\u20143:1\u20134:13<\/p>\n
1. The Superiority of the Son to Moses in His Person and Work\u20143:1\u20134<\/p>\n
This section is based on Numbers 12:5\u20138 and the point of this comparison is faithfulness (3:1). Defection in the Old Testament was under faithful Moses. Now a greater than Moses is here. So will there be another defection? The Messiah is declared to be both an Apostle and a High Priest. An apostle is one who represents God to man, and in the sense being used herein, an apostle is one by whom a dispensation and covenant came into being. This was true of both Moses and Jesus (John 1:17). Through Moses came the Mosaic Covenant and the Dispensation of the Law. Through Jesus came the New Covenant and the Dispensation of Grace. In this way, Jesus is like Moses. A high priest is one who represents man to God, and in this way Jesus is like Aaron. Moses was the highest example of human faithfulness (3:2), but the Messiah is greater in faithfulness than Moses, in that Moses failed, but the Messiah never failed. The proof of the superiority lies in the fact that the builder of the house is superior to the house that he builds (3:3). The \u201chouse\u201d is the House of Israel. Moses is in the House of Israel, but the Messiah is the builder of the house. In fact, He is the builder of all things (3:4).<\/p>\n
2. The Superiority of the Son to Moses in His Position\u20143:5\u20136<\/p>\n
Moses was faithful in the house as a servant (3:5), but the Messiah is the Son of the Lord of the house (3:6) which makes Him superior.<\/p>\n
3. The Second Warning: The Danger of Disobedience\u20143:7\u20134:13<\/p>\n
In this section, based on Numbers 13\u201314, the author deals with the concept of rest and discusses three kinds of rest. First is, creation rest, which points to a finished work and a cessation of activity. It is a type of redemption rest with a twofold application. First, it means to trust the finished work of the Messiah and not go back to the works of the law; and, second, it refers to the rest the believer gets when he dies, for his work on earth is finished. The second is Canaan rest, which points to the rest from struggling with the enemy. It is a type of consecration rest which involves the subjection of the heart, mind and will to God\u2019s power, enabling one to conquer sin. The third is Sabbath rest which points to a spiritual rest and is a type of spiritual maturity in this life.<\/p>\n
(a) The Second Warning: The Admonition Against Disobedience\u20143:7\u201319<\/p>\n
(1) The Old Testament Lesson\u20143:7\u201311<\/p>\n
In light of the fact that the Son is superior to Moses, the author makes his application (3:7a). He quotes Psalm 95:7\u201311 (3:7b\u201311) in order to warn them against apostatizing through disobedience as Israel once did at Kadesh Barnea as they stood at the border of the Promised Land. The mention of forty years is significant, since at the time of the writing of Hebrews it had been about forty years since the crucifixion. God\u2019s reaction to the unbelief at Kadesh Barnea was anger against that same generation that came out of Egypt, and so they failed to enter into the land and failed to enjoy Canaan rest.<\/p>\n
(2) The Application of the Lesson\u20143:12\u201315<\/p>\n
Negatively (3:12), they must also avoid developing a heart of unbelief. Positively (3:13), the Jewish believers must exhort one another against the sin of apostasy. The reason this is necessary (3:14) is because only by the retention of their faith can they outwardly prove they have really believed, since faith itself is invisible. He then quotes Psalm 95:7 again (3:15) to show the urgency of the matter.<\/p>\n
(3) The Interpretation of the Lesson\u20143:16\u201319<\/p>\n
The author interprets the Old Testament lesson by asking three questions. The first question (3:16) is: Who were the provokers? The answer is: The very people God rescued from Egypt, the very ones who had been delivered from bondage in Egypt, who started out for the Promised Land, the ones who missed the life and land of rest because of unbelief. The second question (3:17) is: Who was it that sinned? The answer is: They who sinned were the ones God redeemed from Egypt; they sinned and suffered its consequences and the unbelief manifested itself in open sin throughout the whole forty years. The punishment, of course, was physical death, since not all who died physically were spiritually lost. The third question (3:18) is: Who did He say would not enter into rest? The answer is: They who disobeyed, and disobedience brought judgment. The conclusion (3:19) is: They could not enter into the rest they started out for by faith because of unbelief. The argument of this section is that the same generation redeemed from Egypt failed to enter the land because of apostasy. The present generation is in a similar danger. It has been almost forty years since the Messiah died. After forty years in the wilderness, many died. Now many of them may die in the A.D. 70 destruction if they go back to the old system.<\/p>\n
(b) The Argument Concerning the Rest of Faith\u20144:1\u201310<\/p>\n
In light of Israel\u2019s initial failure to enter into Canaan rest, there is a danger of the present Jewish believers also failing to enter into rest (4:1). The promise of rest is still available, but it is possible that their faith will be so tested by their present experience that they may fall short. The readers are without excuse, for they had the message proclaimed to them (4:2). In the situation of Kadesh Barnea, a report was proclaimed by twelve men (the twelve spies). Now another report has been proclaimed by twelve men (the twelve Apostles). So what will they do with this report? Quoting Psalm 95:11 again (4:3), the author shows that there are believers entering into creation rest. He proceeds to quote two more Old Testament passages to show that the rest had been prepared, but Israel failed to enter into that rest (4:4\u20135). He first quotes Genesis 2:2 (4:4) to show that creation rest had been prepared, and then he quotes Psalm 95:11 (4:5) to prove that Israel failed to enter that rest. Certain ones were to enter into that rest but failed (4:6); however, God did not withdraw the offer of rest for believers and reoffered it through David, who penned Psalm 95 (4:7). If Joshua had provided the ultimate rest, it would not be reoffered later (4:8). While Joshua did give them rest from their enemies, he did not provide true consecration rest, since this could only come through the Messiah. Now that the Messiah has come, there is a Sabbath rest which is available today, but must be entered into by faith (4:9). Using the present tense, the author shows it is available right now. It is the rest of spiritual maturity. It is a Sabbath rest because the one who has entered into it has ceased from his own works as God did from His (4:10).<\/p>\n
(c) The Exhortation to Enter into Rest\u20144:11\u201313<\/p>\n
In light of its availability today, the readers must press on to enter into that rest (4:11), and not make the mistake of Kadesh Barnea. The reason they must do this is because unbelief will not go undetected (4:12\u201313). The reason they must give diligence is because unbelief will be detected by the Word of God (4:12). The Word of God is living and working and will someday call us into account. The detection is so complete that there is nothing that will not be manifested by the Word (4:13).<\/p>\n
(d) The Superiority of the Son to Aaron and the Levitical Priesthood\u20144:14\u201310:18<\/p>\n
This is the author\u2019s most extensive comparison, which is done by showing five better things.<\/p>\n
1. A Better Position\u20144:14\u201316<\/p>\n
The author now encourages his readers to take advantage of the kind of High Priest that they have (4:14). In contrast to Aaron, who went in and came out of the earthly Holy of Holies, our High Priest has passed through the heavens and remained there. The place of His ministry is in heaven, so He is able to represent His own in the very presence of God, For this reason, the Jewish believers must hold fast to their confession that Jesus is the Messiah. The reason they must hold fast is because the kind of High Priest that they have is One who can be touched with the feelings of their infirmities (4:15). He was tempted in the same areas of life as they, but He remained sinless. Because He was tempted, He can now be touched. For that reason, these Jewish believers must come boldly to the throne of grace in order to appropriate the grace they need to get them through this trial (4:16).
\nThe point is: our High Priest has a better position in that He functions in heaven and not on earth.<\/p>\n
2. A Better Priest\u20145:1\u20137:28<\/p>\n
(a) The Prerequisites for Priesthood\u20145:1\u20134<\/p>\n
In order to show how Jesus qualified to even be a priest, the author first lists four qualifications for priesthood. First, he had to be a man (5:1a), for in order to be humane, he had to be human. This is necessary since he represents men to God. Second, he had to function in a specific priestly order (5:1b) that had a system of gifts and offerings. Third, he had to be compassionate (5:2\u20133), which was an advantage of his humanity and is the reason he could deal gently with the ignorant and the erring. Fourth, he had to be appointed by God just as Aaron was (5:4).<\/p>\n
(b) The Qualifications of the Son\u20145:5\u201310<\/p>\n
The author now shows that Jesus fulfilled all four requirements. First, Jesus was divinely appointed (5:5\u20136) and this is proved by two quotations from the Old Testament: Psalm 2:7, emphasizing that only a Son of God could serve as this kind of priest; and, Psalm 110:4, which emphasizes the divine appointment itself. Second, Jesus was human (5:7) as His prayers, supplications, crying, and tears in the days of His flesh clearly show. Third, He was compassionate (5:8) and learned compassion through His sufferings. Fourth, Jesus functions in a priestly order (5:9\u201310), the Order of Melchizedek.<\/p>\n
(c) The Third Warning: Exhortation to Progress to Maturity\u20145:11\u20136:20<\/p>\n
Having mentioned the Order of Melchizedek, the author temporarily drops the subject and will pick it up again in 6:20 and 7:1. His concern is that his readers will not understand what he is about to say because of their failure to mature in the faith. So he must stop and give his third warning as he applies what he has said so far.<\/p>\n
(1) The Fact of Stagnation: The Spiritual Problems\u20145:11\u201314<\/p>\n
The author has much to say about the Order of Melchizedek and will pick it up again later, but he feels the readers are not ready to discuss such a difficult doctrine because of their spiritual dullness (5:11). Their obligation as believers is to develop a sensitive hearing of things hard of interpretation. The reason (5:12) is not a lack of time, because they had believed for some time, long enough to be teachers of the Word; but, instead, they need to be retaught the basics of the Word of God. They can still handle only the milk of the Word and not the meat. The milk represents the basics of the Scriptures, while the meat represents advanced biblical doctrine and its application to the issue of the spiritual life. Their obligation is to develop ability in teaching instead of being retaught the same things over and over again. The author then explains what constitutes babyhood (5:13). It is the failure to make practical use of the knowledge they had, and they are, therefore, without experience of the Word of righteousness. They know that the Messiah was the final sacrifice for sin, yet they see nothing wrong with contemplating going back to Judaism. Their obligation is to develop skill in discussing the major problems of biblical doctrine. Finally, the author explains what constitutes maturity (5:14). The mature believer is one who has an unrestricted diet and can handle the meat of the Word of God, such as the doctrine of the Melchizedekian Priesthood. This was attained by using what was known. It was the result of careful exercise so that he learned to discern between good and evil and learned how to make responsible decisions. The obligation here is the proper use for all believers of what they know.<\/p>\n
(2) The Need for Progression\u20146:1\u20138<\/p>\n
Their condition shows their need for spiritual growth and the danger of relapse. In order to progress, they need to leave the first principles of the Word of God (6:1\u20133), which constitute the milk of the Word of which there are six. First is the foundation of repentance from dead works. The works are those of the Levitical system, now dead because they have come to an end with the death of the Messiah. Second is faith toward God; their once-and-for-all commitment to the Messiahship of Jesus. Third is the teaching of washings or baptisms. These are the ceremonial washings of the Levitical system. Fourth is the laying on of hands, a reference to the laying on of hands on the heads of the sacrifice, which was a means of identification. Fifth is the resurrection from the dead, an Old Testament doctrine. Sixth is eternal judgment of the Great White Throne and the Lake of Fire. These six things must be settled in their hearts once and for all and then left behind for the meat of the Word of God.
\nThis is important because of the impossibility of repeating the past (6:4\u20136). In other words, the option they think they have, they do not; but they do have two other options. The option they think they have is to temporarily give up their salvation, go back to Judaism, wait until the persecution subsides, and then be saved again later; this new salvation would erase their sin of apostasy. This is the option they do not have. In fact, that option is impossible (6:4a). It is impossible for those who have had five spiritual experiences to give up their salvation and be saved again later (6:4b\u20135). These five spiritual experiences show them to be real believers. The first is having been once enlightened, which speaks of the decisive moment when they apprehended the Light, believed, and were regenerated. Second, they have tasted of the heavenly gift; they have fully appropriated the Messiah Himself. Third, they were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, which shows that they had experienced the Spirit\u2019s indwelling. Fourth, they had tasted the good word of God; they had experienced the spoken word and recognized it to be from God. Fifth, they had tasted the powers of the age to come, the power that will be fully manifested in the Messianic Kingdom. These five things show them to be real believers, and for those who are real believers it is impossible for them to do something. What is impossible for them to do (6:6) is to fall away, or to give up or lose their salvation and then be saved again later. The reason this is impossible is because it would require a recrucifixion of Jesus. If that were to happen, it would put Him to open shame, for it would mean that His first death was insufficient to save to the uttermost, to save completely. His first death has provided a complete salvation and has saved the believer to the uttermost. It is impossible for those who have experienced these five spiritual privileges to lose their salvation and to be saved again later.
\nThey do have two other options. The first is to go back to Judaism, which will confirm their immaturity and will make them subject to the judgment of A.D. 70. This will mean physical death now and loss of rewards later. The second option is to make their break from Judaism once and for all and press on to maturity. For Jewish believers, that final break comes by water baptism. The two options are taught by way of an illustration (6:7\u20138). The law of human life teaches that condemnation follows the neglect of blessings, and this can be seen in nature (6:7). We look for certain results from certain conditions. The blessings of God (rain) fall on all believers (earth). Some produce fruit, and some do not. Eventually, they all must be judged, and the results will be rewards for fruitfulness and disapproval for fruitlessness. Judgment will be the result of not going on to maturity and fruitfulness (6:8). Fruitlessness is disapproved; it is nigh unto a curse, meaning the nearness of judgment that has not yet fallen; and going back to the law is to place oneself under the curse of the law (Gal. 3:10, 13). The end is to be burned. It is not the land itself that is burned, but the product of a fruitless land, which is thorns and thistles. In the same way it is not the believer who is burned, but the works of wood, hay and stubble (John 15:6; 1 Cor. 3:10\u201315).<\/p>\n
(3) The Certainty of Salvation: The Spiritual Action\u20146:9\u201320<\/p>\n
The fact of the danger of relapse does not exclude the consolation of hope. The believer\u2019s responsibility is to produce the works which accompany salvation (6:9\u201312). The author is persuaded that they will make the right decision, even if he has been forced to use such harsh language (6:9). The proof that they have their salvation is in their works (6:10). They have produced and still are producing good works (6:11), and it is not that these things are not appreciated; but now it is important that they go on to maturity (6:11) and fulfill the obligations of 5:11\u201314, that is, not to be sluggish but to press on to maturity as others have done though faith and patient endurance (6:12).
\nGod\u2019s promises can never fail, and this is His part to encourage them to maturity (6:13\u201320). The promises to Abraham implied a future fulfillment and this demanded the exercise of patient endurance (6:13\u201315). The author quotes from Genesis 22:16\u201317 to show that Abraham waited twenty-five years before the promise of Isaac\u2019s birth was fulfilled. There is now an unfulfilled promise to us, and we must wait for it with patient endurance (6:16\u201318). The promise is that He will return for us someday. The Messiah\u2019s entrance into heaven is the basis of our certainty as to its future fulfillment (6:19\u201320). Our hope goes right into the presence of God, for our Messiah is there (6:19). The things we have believed about Him are true, and we have fled for refuge to Him. Now we must exercise patient endurance until we attain the hope set before us, the hope of the Messiah\u2019s return. The Messiah\u2019s entry into heaven makes Him a forerunner (6:20), and where our forerunner has entered for us, we are to follow later. The author closes this third warning by identifying Jesus as the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek and returns to the topic he left off at 5:10.<\/p>\n
(d) The Priesthood of Melchizedek\u20147:1\u201328<\/p>\n
Now the author is ready to explain the Order of Melchizedek, and the various comparisons are based on the very limited revelation in the Old Testament about Melchizedek. This revelation was limited so that the resemblance could be extensive. The Old Testament background is Genesis 14:18\u201320 and Psalm 110:4. The author makes three comparisons.<\/p>\n
(1) The Origin of Melchizedek\u20147:1\u20133<\/p>\n
The first comparison is between Jesus and Melchizedek. The author begins by showing the characteristics of Melchizedek, and he draws six similarities. First, Melchizedek was a priest-king: he was the priest of God Most High, and the king of Salem, or Jerusalem. Second, his priesthood issued in blessing in that he blessed Abraham. Third, he received tithes from Abraham and the giving of tithes was a recognition of superiority. Fourth, he had an independent priesthood, in that it was not based on ancestry as was the Levitical Order. For that reason, there is no genealogy given for Melchizedek, since it was unnecessary for his priesthood. His appointment was independent of human relations. Fifth, it was timeless in that the Genesis account gives no beginning or ending of his priesthood. As far as the biblical record is concerned, he abides a priest continually. The Levitical priest could only serve from the ages of 25 to 50 (Num. 8:24\u201325). The sixth similarity is that it was all-inclusive, in that Melchizedek ministered to all and not just to one nation, as was the case of the Levites. The point of all this is that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God; not that he was the Son of God, but that he was a type of the Messiah in these six similarities.<\/p>\n
(2) The Order of Melchizedek\u20147:4\u201310<\/p>\n
In this section the author makes a second comparison between the Melchizedekian Priesthood and the Levitical Priesthood, showing the superiority of the Melchizedekian in four ways. First, Melchizedek accepted tithes from Abraham (7:4\u20135). The Levitical Priesthood also collected tithes, but they collected from their brethren while Melchizedek collected from their father. The second superiority is seen in the sphere of blessing (7:6\u20137), in that Melchizedek blessed Abraham (7:6) and the blessor is superior to the one blessed (7:7). The third superiority (7:8) is that the Levitical Priesthood was administered by dying men and provision was made for succession. This was not so with Melchizedek, who represents the living, not the dying. The Melchizedekian Order is eternal. The fourth superiority is shown in respect to Levi, the founder of the Tribe of Levi, who paid tithes to Abraham (7:9\u201310) in a seminal relationship. The point of this section is that Jesus is a priest after the Order of Melchizedek and not after the Order of Aaron and, therefore, superior. If the Jewish fathers were obliged to recognize the superiority of the Melchizedekian Order, so should the sons.<\/p>\n
(3) The Office of Priest\u20147:11\u201325<\/p>\n
The third comparison is between the Levitical Priesthood with that of Jesus in order to explain why the Levitical Priesthood could not bring perfection. He discusses the old priesthood first (7:11\u201319) and points out two things. First, the old priesthood was changeable (7:11\u201314). There never was any perfection through the Levitical Priesthood (7:11), which is why God predicted through David of another priest to arise that would not be after the Levitical Order. Such a change of priesthood also required a change of the Law of Moses (7:12), because there was an inseparable connection between the Levitical Priesthood and the Law of Moses. This required the doing away of the Law of Moses. Psalm 110:4 speaks of a priest from David\u2019s line (7:13), which clearly infers that the coming priest would not be of the Levitical Order. The Messiah had to be of a different order, for there could be no priests from the Tribe of Judah under the law (7:14). Second, the old priesthood was temporary (7:15\u201319). if there was to be another priest after the Order of Melchizedek, then obviously the Levitical Order had to be temporary (7:15), for they could not co-exist. The contrast (7:16) is that the old was based on the law, and the Levitical priest was a priest only because his father was one. The new priesthood is based on the power of an endless life, for Jesus became a priest only after His resurrection. He then quotes from Psalm 110:4 to prove the eternity of the new priest (7:17). What he said had to happen in verse 12 now has happened (7:18), and the law was set aside for two reasons: its weakness, since it could not impart the strength to fulfill its demands; and, its unprofitableness, since it could not bring perfection. This clearly teaches that the Law of Moses was abolished or put away. The law never could bring perfection, so a new priesthood and priest became necessary (7:15).
\nThe author then states two things about the new priesthood (7:20\u201325). First, it is immutable or unchangeable (7:20\u201322). The Aaronic system was not based on an oath, but on descendancy, while the new priesthood is based on the oath of God (7:20\u201321). The result is that the Messiah is the guarantor of the New Covenant (7:22). Second, the new priesthood is uninterrupted (7:23\u201325). Death kept the priest in the old priesthood from continuing (7:23), but Jesus abides forever and His priesthood remains uninterrupted (7:24). The result is that He is able to save the believer to the uttermost (7:25), since He ever lives to make intercession for us.<\/p>\n
(4) The Conclusion\u20147:26\u201328<\/p>\n
The author now draws the conclusion of the second main comparison. He points out that what we needed was a spotless priest, and now we have one (7:26). What we needed was a sufficient sacrifice, and now we have one (7:27). The contrast is one of weakness and strength (7:28). The Levitical was under the law and was ministered by dying men. The Melchizedekian was based on an oath made after the law was given, since Psalm 110:4 came after the law. It is ministered by the Eternal Son who is eternally perfected. The Levitical has been comprehensively replaced.
\nThe point is this: our High Priest is better because He is after the Order of Melchizedek and not after the Order of Aaron.<\/p>\n
3. A Better Covenant\u20148:1\u201313<\/p>\n
(a) The Basis of the New Covenant\u20148:1\u20136<\/p>\n
The author now makes his third main comparison and begins with a summary statement (8:1\u20132), that we have a unique High Priest who serves in the heavenly tabernacle and has taken His seat at the right hand of God the Father. He gives the proof of the Messiah\u2019s exalted ministry through two syllogisms (8:3\u20135). The first syllogism (8:3) is:<\/p>\n
Major Premise A priest\u2019s office is to offer sacrifices;<\/p>\n
Minor Premise Jesus is a priest;<\/p>\n
Conclusion Jesus must have something to offer (to be discussed in 9:11\u201310:18).<\/p>\n
The second syllogism (8:4\u20135) is:<\/p>\n
Major Premise The sphere of Messiah\u2019s priestly office could be heavenly or earthly;<\/p>\n
Minor Premise It cannot be earthly for there are other priests officiating in accordance to the law;<\/p>\n
Conclusion The Messiah\u2019s ministry must be in the heavenly tabernacle (to be discussed in 9:1\u201310).<\/p>\n
The earthly tabernacle was circumscribed by rigid law, which even Moses could not break; so the sphere of Messiah\u2019s ministry had to be in heaven. The author then draws his conclusion (8:6). Jesus now serves in a more excellent ministry which is based on a better covenant containing better promises. The New Covenant is the basis for His High Priesthood in a better sanctuary (9:1\u201310) and ratified by a better sacrifice with better blood (9:11\u201310:18).<\/p>\n
(b) The Proof of the Superiority of the New Covenant\u20148:7\u201312<\/p>\n
The author begins with a statement of superiority (8:7), that if the Mosaic Covenant was faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant. To prove there was such a need (8:8\u201312), he quotes Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, not to prove it is being fulfilled in the Church, but to prove that the prophets anticipated the replacement of the Mosaic Covenant on which the old priesthood rested, and the introduction of the New Covenant on which the new priesthood is based.<\/p>\n
(c) The Conclusion\u20148:13<\/p>\n
Once Jeremiah said new, he made the Mosaic the old, which points to its temporariness. Furthermore, that which has become old is on its way to vanishing away. The Mosaic Covenant became old under Jeremiah and vanished away with the death of the Messiah. It became too old (not archaios, meaning old in point of time, but palaios, meaning old in point of use, worn out, outmoded, useless).
\nThe point is this: we have a better priest because His priesthood is based on a better covenant which is eternal and not temporary, and it contains better promises.<\/p>\n
4. A Better Sanctuary\u20149:1\u201310<\/p>\n
(a) The Parts and the Furniture of the Tabernacle\u20149:1\u20135<\/p>\n
The author begins his fourth main comparison by discussing the old order (9:1), the Holy Place (9:2) and the Holy of Holies (9:3\u20135a). His intent (9:5b) is not to give the details of everything, but only to give an outline of the way of approach to God. The important thing is not the type, but the reality. The Tabernacle is a type of the Messiah in its basic outline and not in the details.<\/p>\n
(b) The Priestly Service\u20149:6\u20137<\/p>\n
The author next deals with the ministry in the Holy Place (9:6), emphasizing the continual, unending work of the Levitical priest. As for the Holy of Holies (9:7), the emphasis is on the limited access to God\u2019s presence, for only the High Priest could enter. Only one man, out of one family, out of one clan, out of one tribe, out of one nation, out of one race, could enter, and even then only one day in the year and not without blood.<\/p>\n
(c) The Limitation of the Earthly Sanctuary\u20149:8\u201310<\/p>\n
Three lessons are to be learned from all this. First, the earthly sanctuary was unable to provide a way of free access to God (9:8). Second, it was unable to make the worshipper perfect in relationship to his conscience (9:9), which is why it was temporary for the time present. Third, these were all externals only (9:10) and, therefore, inadequate. They were temporarily imposed until a time of reformation which has now arrived with the coming of the Messiah.
\nThe point is: our High Priest functions in a better sanctuary because it is the original and not the copy, and it is in heaven and not on earth.<\/p>\n
5. A Better Sacrifice\u20149:11\u201310:18<\/p>\n
(a) The Superiority of Messiah\u2019s Sacrifice\u20149:11\u201312<\/p>\n
The author begins his fifth major comparison by showing the superiority of the Messiah\u2019s sacrifice in three ways. The first superiority is the place where it works, which is a better sanctuary (9:11). It is both greater and perfect, since it is not made with human hands, nor is it of this creation; it is not earthly, but heavenly. The second superiority is the nature of the offering in that it is a better sacrifice (9:12a). It was not animal blood, but the Messiah\u2019s blood. The third superiority is its abiding efficacy, providing a better sufficiency (9:12b) so that it only needed to be offered once. It obtained eternal security.<\/p>\n
(b) The Results of Messiah\u2019s Sacrifice\u20149:13\u201328<\/p>\n
The author mentions three main results. The first was purification (9:13\u201314), not merely outward ceremonial cleansing which was all that animal blood could do (9:13), but also the internal purification which includes the cleansing of the conscience (9:14). The second result was the ratification of the New Covenant (9:15\u201322) by which the sins of all believers are removed, both those who lived before the Messiah and those who live afterwards. The death of the Messiah provided atonement for the sins under the Mosaic Covenant and ratified the New Covenant that brings blessing instead of condemnation. The shedding of Messiah\u2019s blood was necessary because of the principle that, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. The third result is the Messiah\u2019s ministry in the heavenly tabernacle (9:23\u201328). Just as the earthly tabernacle needed the cleansing of blood, so did the heavenly, but that one required better blood (9:23). The Messiah entered into heaven (9:24) with a finished atonement once and for all (9:25\u201326a), having vanquished sin forever (9:26b) so now the believer is awaiting the expected return of this High Priest (9:27\u201328).<\/p>\n
(c) The Efficacy of the Messiah\u2019s Sacrifice\u201410:1\u201318<\/p>\n
The author begins by stating the insufficiencies of the Mosaic sacrifices (10:1\u20134). The Mosaic sacrifices could not bring perfection, which is why they had to be repeated (10:1). This very repetition shows their insufficiency, otherwise they would have ceased being offered (10:2). At best, they set forth a need and the sacrifices themselves only caused a remembrance of the sins year by year (10:3). The real problem was that it was impossible for animal blood to take away sins. The sins of the Old Testament saints were covered, but not removed.
\nThe author then points out the sufficiency of the sacrifice of the Messiah (10:5\u201310). The only acceptable sacrifice for a final atonement is one that comes with perfect obedience (10:5). The author then quotes Psalm 40:6\u20138 to show that only obedience brings perfection (10:6\u20137). Since the Messiah obeyed, He can impart perfection, and this shows that the sacrifices were never intended to be permanent. The perfect obedience of the Messiah stands in sharp contrast with the Mosaic sacrifices (10:8\u20139). God did not delight in the Mosaic sacrifices (10:8) and so He rectified the problem (10:9) by taking away the first (Mosaic) and establishing the second (New). As believers, we are now partakers of the fruits of His obedience (10:10), having experienced positional sanctification.
\nThe writer moves on to explain the efficacy of the Messiah\u2019s present work (10:11\u201314). He begins by contrasting the Levitical priest with the Messiah\u2019s present position (10:11\u201313). The contrast is sevenfold: the many priests (every priest) and the One priest (this man); they are standing, showing an unfinished work while He is sitting, showing a finished work; they sacrifice daily, but He in one day; they sacrificed many times, but He sacrificed once; they offered many sacrifices, but He offered only one sacrifice; they provided a temporary atonement, but He provided a permanent atonement; and, they covered sins, but He took the sins away. The Messiah is now seated at the right hand of God because His work is done and He has no need to repeat it. He will remain there until He rises to judge at the second coming. The result (10:14) is that His one sacrifice has perfected forever those now being sanctified because it was a better sacrifice with better blood.
\nThe theological section ends with the reaffirmation of the enactment of the New Covenant (10:15\u201318). The truth that sins would be effectively dealt with once and for all was prophesied in the Old Testament (10:15). The author quotes Jeremiah 31:33\u201334 (10:16\u201317) to prove that the New Covenant would mean no more remembrance of sin and no more conscience of sin. Under the New Covenant, there is no place left for the Levitical sacrifices, and the Jewish believer can dispense with them without any loss. The reason is that since there is now a final remission of sin, there are no more acceptable offerings for sin (10:18). The possession of remission negates any further need for an offering for sin. Since the Messiah brought perfection and complete forgiveness so that sin cannot even be remembered, what further need is there for the Levitical sacrifice? This is the last decisive word on the matter.
\nThe point is: we have a better sacrifice because it is better blood. In place of animal blood, it is the Messiah\u2019s blood.<\/p>\n
II. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE SUPERIORITY OF THE SON IN THE LIFE OF THE BELIEVER\u201410:19\u201313:25<\/p>\n
Having shown the superiority of the Messiah to the three pillars of Judaism\u2014angels, Moses, and the Levitical Priesthood\u2014and after giving three warnings on the side, the author applies these truths to the Jewish believers to whom he is writing.<\/p>\n
A. Exhortation\u2014Warning\u2014Encouragement\u201410:19\u201339<\/p>\n
1. Exhortation\u201410:19\u201325<\/p>\n
In this section, the author gives two bases for the exhortations (10:19\u201321), followed by four exhortations (10:22\u201325). The first basis is their access to God\u2019s presence based upon the blood of the Messiah (10:19\u201320), and this summarizes the first division of Hebrews (1:1\u201310:18). The second basis is the sovereign power of our Priest (10:21) so that He could intervene in the things that we ask. The first exhortation (10:22) is an exhortation to faith. They are encouraged to approach the Throne of God with sincerity and fullness of faith, since they have access to God on the basis of having had their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (positional sanctification) and having their bodies bathed in clean water (practical sanctification). The second exhortation (10:23) is an exhortation to hope. They are next encouraged to hold fast the confession of their hope which is that Jesus is the Messiah. The third exhortation (10:24) is an exhortation to love, and they are encouraged to provoke fellow believers to love and to good works. The fourth exhortation (10:25) is not to forsake a regular assembling of themselves as fellow believers. The Greek verb for assembling is episunagogein, from which the word \u201csynagogue\u201d comes, showing the Jewish nature of both the author, the readers, and the concept. Elsewhere, the word is found only in 2 Thessalonians 2:1. This regular gathering together of believers is necessary so that they can exhort one another to do the first three exhortations. This is especially important, as ye see the day drawing nigh. This gives the fourth exhortation a sense of urgency, for the day is an expression of judgment. The fact that it is drawing nigh<\/p>\n
.However, his attempt to prove this point by ignoring or misinterpreting the context of this passage is not the way to do it.
\nJuster also discusses in a limited way the Book of Hebrews and makes the following comment:<\/p>\n
The essence of argument of the book is to not place our hopes in ritual or in a purified human priesthood because in Yeshua we have a better sacrifice, a better priesthood and a better Covenant. There is no statement to the effect that we have a better Law, for, as we have seen, the New Covenant promise is to write God\u2019s Law, statutes, and ordinances upon our hearts (Ezekiel 36:27). Further attention to the Book of Hebrews shows that what is referred to as being \u201cobsolete\u201d is the whole Temple-priestly, sacrificial system. Indeed the word obsolete is literally in \u201cprocess of vanishing\u201d in the original.\u2026<\/p>\n
The writer to the Hebrews emphasizes that the Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is essentially connected to this system\u2014which is vanishing. The New Covenant replaces this Covenant because of the weaknesses inherent in that old system which was given only for a time to point to the sacrificial-priestly work of Yeshua.<\/p>\n
We have stated clearly that we believe the Abrahamic Covenant with Israel is still in effect (Romans 11:29). We have also argued that the Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is no longer in full effect and that God has sovereignly removed the possibility of following this Covenant by allowing the Temple to be destroyed. Hence, as a Covenant by which we gain entrance into the presence of God, this Covenant is superseded. Note that the writer of Hebrews is clearly referring to the Mosaic Covenant and emphasizing its priestly sacrificial dimensions when he states that it, as a Covenant, is vanishing (see all of Chapter 8).\u2026<\/p>\n
This does not mean that the Mosaic writings are not Scripture, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (see 2 Timothy 3:16). Nor does it mean that these documents (Torah) cannot give guidance to a Jewish calling and identity which transcends the sacrificial-priestly system. The feasts, for example, are the national celebrations of Israel and exist because of God\u2019s promise to make of Abraham a great nation. They celebrate God\u2019s acts of grace to Israel. Although recorded in Mosaic writings, they are essentially connected to the Abrahamic Covenant, a Covenant of faith and promise still in effect. Nowhere does Hebrews even hint that the writer is opposed to the celebration of God\u2019s faithfulness in Jewish history when Yeshua\u2014not the sacrifices\u2014is the center of every feast.<\/p>\n
The Book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that the Mosaic Covenant has been done away and this Juster admits, but he claims that Hebrews never says that there is a \u201cnew law.\u201d However, the Mosaic Covenant contained the Mosaic Law and so to do away with the covenant is to do away with the law. Juster admits that the whole Levitical sacrificial system has been done away with. It is impossible to conclude that the sacrificial system is part of the Mosaic Covenant and not part of the Mosaic Law. Again, it is Impossible to do away with the Mosaic Covenant without doing away with the Mosaic Law at the same time. There is no need for Hebrews to talk about a new law for a new covenant is sufficient to cover this. If it is true that the \u201cNew Covenant replaces this Covenant,\u201d then it also replaces the Law of Moses. If \u201cthe Mosaic Covenant, as a Covenant, is no longer in full effect,\u201d neither is the Law of Moses. If the Mosaic \u201cCovenant is superseded,\u201d so is the Law of Moses. Juster is correct that this \u201cdoes not mean that the Mosaic writings are not Scripture\u201d or that they do not \u201cgive guidance to a Jewish calling and identity.\u201d However, just as the sacrificial system is profitable for teaching, but not a mandatory practice, so is the rest of the Law of Moses. There is no need or biblical warrant to make a part of the law mandatory for Jewish believers to prove their loyalty to their Jewishness. To claim that the feasts are mandatory on the basis that \u201cthey are essentially connected to the Abrahamic Covenant\u201d though \u201crecorded in Mosaic writings\u201d is to stretch the text well beyond any proper exegesis or valid hermeneutics.
\nJuster\u2019s attempt to make a distinction between the Mosaic Covenant and the Law of Moses comes up again in his treatment of 2 Corinthians 3:7\u201318:<\/p>\n
Here a contrast is made between the New and Old Covenants. We should note that the references contrasting the New Covenant relate not to the Tenach or the Old Covenant Scriptures as a whole, nor even the Torah (Genesis\u2014Deuteronomy), but only the Covenant which Moses received from God. There is no contrast with the Abrahamic Covenant, for example, in Genesis 12\u201317. Of this Mosaic Covenant received from Sinai we read these descriptive words: \u201cThe written code kills,\u201d \u201cthe dispensation of death,\u201d \u201cdispensation of condemnation.\u201d In contrast the New Covenant is called the \u201cdispensation of the spirit\u201d and the \u201cdispensation of righteousness.\u201d Indeed, the New Covenant is compared to the old as one which has greater splendor and permanence while the old is fading away.\u2026<\/p>\n
This passage gives the solution to false interpretations which despise Torah. When Paul called the Mosaic Covenant the dispensation of death, it was not because of its inherent nature. It was rather because of what people made of the Torah by their approach to it. Because humans are sinful, they approached Torah as a system of works-righteousness and falsely sought to earn God\u2019s favor by their own merits.\u2026<\/p>\n
The Mosaic Covenant of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy was glorious. However, the New Covenant\u2014which outstrips it in power\u2014has much greater glory!\u2026<\/p>\n
The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic as the way of entrance into the presence of God and providing a new way of approach to God by the sacrifice of Yeshua, which replaces the sacrifices of the Mosaic revelation central to it.\u2026 It does not provide a new Law, but rather the power to do the Law in Him.\u2026<\/p>\n
Nothing in this passage, however, removes the gift and call of God to Jewish followers of Yeshua, which Paul calls (in Romans 11:29) \u201cirrevocable.\u201d The apostles\u2019 example in maintaining their heritage is clear. Some years after this passage was written, Paul testified that he lived in observance of the Laws and customs (Acts 27). He was not contradicting his own writing. The call of a Jew to the purposes of Israel is a result of God\u2019s everlasting covenant with Abraham. Jewish national practices rooted in Torah primarily celebrate the fulfillment by God of those promises. In every practice we see Yeshua\u2019s meaning and light over all.<\/p>\n
Juster admits that Paul has the Mosaic Covenant in mind, but denies that Paul has the law in view. However, it is impossible to separate the two. If the Mosaic Covenant is fading away, so is the law. The way Paul describes the Mosaic Covenant would also be true of the Mosaic Law: a dispensation of death and a dispensation of condemnation. Furthermore, the passage focuses on the Ten Commandments which no one denies, not even Juster, are part of the Law of Moses. The descriptions Paul gave are descriptions of the Law of Moses itself and not merely \u201cwhat people made of the Torah by their approach to it\u201d which was \u201cas a system of works righteousness,\u201d a notion that must be read into the text for it cannot be exegetically derived. The Law of Moses was a dispensation of death and condemnation because of man\u2019s inability to keep it, not because of man\u2019s approach to it. Juster is trying hard to do the exegetically impossible: to prove that the \u201cNew Covenant replaces the Mosaic\u201d without at the same time replacing the law. Juster admits that the New Covenant \u201creplaces the sacrifices of the Mosaic revelation central to it,\u201d but claims that it did \u201cnot provide a new Law.\u201d It did provide a new law: the Law of Christ.
\nJuster is again correct that nothing in this passage \u201cremoves the gift and the call of God to Jewish followers of Yeshua,\u201d but it does remove the Law of Moses as being part of it. It is the Abrahamic Covenant that is the basis and although Juster tries hard to connect the feasts of Israel with that covenant, it is exegetically impossible. It is sufficient to say that the Jewish believer is free to observe \u201cJewish national practices rooted in the Torah\u201d but not required to do so.
\nWhen Juster discusses Mark 7:19 (all foods are clean), he makes the following strained argument:<\/p>\n
Yeshua did not directly teach at this time that the food laws or the Biblical heritage of Jews was then at an end. Indeed the statement, \u201cJesus declared all foods clean\u201d may be a scribal addition, as noted in English versions by brackets. We cannot be sure that it comes from Mark himself. Let us assume that it does. If so, it does not say, as often misquoted, that \u201call things are clean\u201d but that all foods are clean. A \u201cfood\u201d would be defined as that which was listed as acceptable in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy. Hence the passage may only mean that foods not ritually treated according to the non-biblical Pharisaic tradition are yet acceptable for eating. When we turn to the parallel of Matthew 15, this becomes almost certain\u2014for Yeshua there concludes, \u201cEating with unwashed hands does not make a man unclean.\u201d<\/p>\n
The issue clearly is the clean and unclean nature of foods in regard to ceremonial washing. Pork would not be considered a food.\u2026<\/p>\n
However we may interpret the above Scripture, an application of the biblical kosher laws is not determinable on the basis of this passage alone. The passage gives no weight to a generalized conclusion that all celebrations of the Jewish biblical heritage are now to be eliminated.<\/p>\n
To suggest that the phrase is \u201ca scribal addition\u201d and may not be originally what Mark wrote has no textual support. The reason for the brackets is to point out that the phrase is not a quotation of what Jesus said, but Mark\u2019s own editorial comment.
\nTo claim that the word \u201cfood\u201d is only applicable to the kosher foods of Leviticus 11 and not to unkosher animals is incredible and not validated by any word study of the term. Juster obviously feels that the dietary code is still mandatory and so must find a way around this text by limiting the term \u201cfood\u201d to refer to kosher food only. What is declared clean only refers to what Pharisaic tradition declared unclean and has nothing to do with the food of Leviticus 11! However, this is an unlikely view. If would have been more defensible if it was found in Matthew\u2019s parallel account because he did write to Jews. Mark wrote to Romans who would not have been familiar with such fine distinctions and would have taken Mark\u2019s comment to be a statement concerning food in general.
\nJuster is correct when he claims that this \u201cpassage gives no weight to a generalized conclusion that all celebrations of the Jewish biblical heritage are now to be eliminated.\u201d However, this passage does make it clear that the dietary code is optional and not mandatory.
\nFinally, in discussing Colossians 2:16\u201323, Juster uses a similar approach as he did with Galatians 4:8\u201310:<\/p>\n
This passage is somewhat obscured by the fact that we do not know the circumstances to which it was addressed. Some quote the passage, however, as proof against celebrating Jewish festivals. Yet, the passage is far more complex, for the situation evidently reflected not only those who were judgmental in regard to Jewish observances but who also worshipped angels (v. 18), \u201cpracticed asceticism\u201d in a harsh treatment of the body (v. 23), and were involved in superstitions of not touching or tasting. These superstitions involved participation in the \u201celemental spirits\u201d of the universe\u2014which are demons. All of this is called \u201cphilosophy and empty deceit according to the elemental spirits of the universe.\u201d But it is clearly not speaking about Biblical Judaism.\u2026<\/p>\n
Clearly, what is in mind is not the call of a Jew to maintain his celebration of God\u2019s gracious work in the history of Israel and the world. Rather, it is the imposition of such practices on non-Jews that is forbidden, as well as the whole quasi-magical superstition present at Colosse.<\/p>\n
Paul does not contradict his own practice, as recorded in Acts. The passage says nothing negative to a Jew who, in light of the whole of biblical history, senses a call of God\u2019s Spirit to remain part of his people and to celebrate God\u2019s faithfulness to Israel through the festivals which are now used to extol salvation in Yeshua.\u2026 So far as it is consistent with Scripture, the Messianic Jew will be involved in identification with Israel\u2014on every possible level.<\/p>\n
This passage is not as obscure as Juster would like to make it for the meaning is quite clear: let no one judge you concerning the practice of certain Jewish practices which include eating, drinking, observing the Sabbath, the New Moon or a religious festival. This is quite similar to the Galatians passage and Juster tries to treat it the same way. It clearly does teach that certain practices of the Law of Moses are no longer mandatory. Juster is correct that this passage teaches that it is forbidden to impose these practices on non-Jews. Juster is also correct that this passage does not forbid Jewish believers to practice these elements. It does forbid the imposing of these things on Jewish believers as well. What Juster is aiming for is that \u201cso far as it is consistent with Scripture, the Messianic Jew will be involved in identification with Israel\u2014on every possible level.\u201d Every Jewish believer has the freedom to do this, but it is up to every individual Jewish believer to decide for himself as to how many levels he will be involved and it is not for others to impose it on him.
\nThe fifth chapter is, \u201cSurvey of the History of Judaism and Christianity.\u201d Here, Juster tries to make a distinction between Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews which is simply not true:<\/p>\n
\u2026 What is the distinction between Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Christianity, which was the traditional designation for Jewish believers in Yeshua?<\/p>\n
Hebrew Christians, traditionally, have not emphasized the planting of Jewish congregations; but Messianic Jews have. Hebrew-Christianity, at times, saw Jewishness as merely an ethnic identity, whereas Messianic Judaism saw its Jewish life and identity as a continued call of God. Of course there are many exceptions for those who use either label. A total distinction cannot be drawn. In general, however, Messianic Judaism has emphasized the planting of Messianic Jewish congregations and fidelity to the Jewish biblical calling. The exact nature of this is still in process of outworking. Furthermore, Messianic Jews have tended not to use the \u201cChristian\u201d label because of its cultural sense\u2014not being Jewish (which is a Jewish understanding of the word)\u2014rather than its linguistic meaning, \u201cOne of the Messiah.\u201d<\/p>\n
The fallacy of this distinction has already been dealt with in chapter X.<\/p>\n
The sixth chapter is, \u201cThe Faith and Life of Messianic Jews.\u201d In a section subtitled \u201cSalvation and Jews Who Do Not Know Yeshua,\u201d Juster allows for the possibility of salvation apart from conscious faith in Yeshua:<\/p>\n
If Jewish people were granted fellowship with God and everlasting life in the Old Covenant period, why should it be precluded now? Let\u2019s say that a righteous Jew died an hour after the resurrection (or the gift of the Spirit at Shavuot or Pentecost, if you wish this to be the time of responsibility); would he be hell-bound then, but heaven-bound if only he had died an hour earlier? This is unthinkable, and indeed unscriptural. Scripture clearly teaches that lostness is a condition that results from rejecting the revelation of God that can be known.\u2026<\/p>\n
The time when people and individuals are responsible is when revelation is given; and this time is different for everyone. It is only when the Spirit-revealer is spurned that lostness ensues. The persecution of centuries has rendered the Old Testament the main source of revelation and response for most Jews.\u2026<\/p>\n
What of the exclusionary verses which were quoted? First, let us note that one can\u2019t reject something he or she has not been clearly offered. John 3:36 says the wrath of God abides on the one who rejects the Son. So also, 1 John 5:12, \u201cHe that has the Son has life, he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.\u201d Did the believing Jews of the Tenach in a spiritual sense have the Son even though he had not yet come? Most would say yes. Why not then Jews one hour after the resurrection, or one year, or one hundred years later?\u2026<\/p>\n
In a day when our ancestors looked for many believers from Roman oppression, Peter was able to say, \u201cthere is salvation in no one else.\u201d In other words, all saved people\u2014from Adam until the present\u2014are saved only in Yeshua. \u201cHe is the only name given under heaven among men by which we must be saved.\u201d \u2026<\/p>\n
Peter was not only calling for an explicit response to Yeshua in Acts 4:12, but was teaching that all salvation has always been in Him.\u2026<\/p>\n
If a person still believes that a conscious, explicit response must be made for Yeshua before death, we would point to the possibility of further revelation even at the moment of death for those who have responded in faith to the revelation they have been given.<\/p>\n
In this segment, Juster clearly believes in the possibility of salvation apart from a conscious belief in the Messiahship of Jesus and, therefore, believes in more than one way of salvation. Many times he has stated that salvation is by grace through faith, but here he shows that the content of faith need not be the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Messiah.
\nPart of his defense for this proposition is that since \u201cJewish people were granted fellowship with God and everlasting life in the Old Covenant period, why should it be precluded now?\u201d The answer is that the coming of the Messiah did make some changes in the content of faith (1 Corinthians 15:1\u20134). Juster\u2019s example about the hour before and the hour after the resurrection is not relevant to the issue today. It is true that if one was regenerate before the cross he did not become unregenerate after the cross, but those who were regenerate did recognize the troth of the gospel when they heard it. That period of time was a transitional period between two dispensations. However, no one today is in that category since every one living today was born well after the cross.
\nAnother point of evidence Juster presents is that the \u201cScripture clearly teaches that lostness is a condition that results from rejecting the revelation of God that can be known.\u201d This is not found in Scripture and the passages he cites do not actually make that statement. If one is not lost until he actually rejects the revelation of God, then that would imply that a person is born in an unlost condition and remains unlost until he consciously rejects the revelation of God at which point he becomes lost. The Bible teaches otherwise: that all are born lost and because of that condition, reject the revelation of God. It is the wrath and condemnation of God that results from man\u2019s rejection of God\u2019s revelation and not lostness, as such. Also, to prove his point, he cites John 3:36, but misquotes the passage to read that \u201cthe wrath of God abides on one who rejects the Son\u201d and it is obvious \u201cthat one cannot reject something he or she has not been clearly offered.\u201d John 3:36 reads as follows:<\/p>\n
He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that the verse does not say \u201creject,\u201d but that a person is condemned because he did not believe in the Son. It is unbelief that condemns, and not active rejection. The reason for the unbelief is man\u2019s lost condition.
\nJuster interprets Peter\u2019s words in Acts 4:12 to mean only that \u201call saved people\u2014from Adam until the present\u2014are saved only in Yeshua,\u201d but this does not mean that the individual was conscious of this; that it is possible for a Jewish person to be saved today by grace through faith, but the content of that faith need not be Jesus, but could be only in the Abrahamic Covenant. What Juster does not spell out is exactly what in or about the Abrahamic Covenant one would have to believe in order to be saved. This is a very questionable interpretation of Acts 4:12 and what Peter is stating is that one must believe in Jesus to have salvation. Peter made this statement to Jewish leaders who knew who Jesus was. This is further evidenced by 1 Corinthians 15:1\u20134 where Paul in no uncertain terms states that for one to be saved he must believe that Jesus died for his sins, was buried, and rose again.
\nChapter seven is entitled, \u201cThe Life of Messianic Jews\u201d and under the subheading, \u201cWhat Does it Mean to be Jewish?\u201d Juster states:<\/p>\n
As stated throughout this book, God has called Israel to be a unique nation among the nations, a witness to His truth and faithfulness. As a nation they were given unique practices such as the practice of the Sabbath and the feasts, so that the people would be unified by the memory of what God had done in graciously establishing the nation. The nation would also then be unified in recognizing its unique purpose in showing forth the truth of the Scriptures and the faithfulness of God. The Biblical heritage of feast and festival and identity with the nation is crucial.<\/p>\n
The full scope of being a loyal Jew thus includes involvement in the Jewish community and support for Israel. However, even more, it means the preservation of the very historic Biblical roots of her heritage which makes these involvements possible today. It includes Sabbath, the feasts, Hebrew language, unique tunes and sounds in worship, as well as Bible-based discerning appreciation of Jewish history, literature and wisdom. Not all will be able to as fully give themselves to the whole of the Jewish heritage, but as loyal Jews, we should do so to the extent that we can. God has preserved Israel; He has done so through the element of the Jewish heritage.<\/p>\n
There is nothing particularly wrong with what Juster states and, in fact, it is mostly good. If all of this is voluntary and not imposed, it is totally acceptable. The problem area concerns judging the Jewish loyalties of Jewish believers based on how far they choose to practice these things.<\/p>\n
The Sabbath is a central pivot of Jewish life. As taught by Yeshua, \u201cthe Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath\u201d (Mark 2:27). It was never meant to be a day of legalistic conformity. However, Sabbath is a day of crucial significance to Jewish identity. The principle of weekly rest, worship and renewal is one with universal significance. In this sense, the Sabbath principle is a spiritual and humanitarian guide for all peoples. Christians are free to incorporate this principle on Sunday or other days. The seventh day Sabbath for Israel is a special central sign of the Covenant between Israel and God. Hence, to abrogate the sign of the Covenant as a Jew is to cast doubt on whether we uphold the continuing covenant of God with Israel. Sabbath itself antedates Israel\u2019s existence and is a reflection of the creation order. However, Israel is given Sabbath as a memorial of God\u2019s gracious rescue from slavery as well as a memorial of creation and God\u2019s resting in the seventh period.<\/p>\n
Messianic Judaism looks to Yeshua, who proclaimed himself \u201cLord of the Sabbath\u201d (Mark 2:28), to gain a sense of direction for observance. The day is meant to be a break from the routine of work, whereby we may be renewed by worship, fellowship and rest. By this rest and renewal, Messianic Jews testify that God is Lord of creation and that man need not be subject to work as though the economic sphere of life has a tyrannical control over our lives. The one who is a person of faith and knows the \u201crest of faith\u201d in Yeshua, testifies to the world that God is gracious and kind and will provide for us by faith even if one-seventh of our lives is spent in freedom from providing for our own material needs.\u2026<\/p>\n
Outside of a Jewish context, the Apostle Paul allowed for freedom in regards to worship days. But he nowhere speaks against Jews who follow the Sabbath. He would not, however, allow a legalistic imposition of Sabbath on non-Jews. Our historical documents show that the Jewish believers of the first several centuries continued to practice Shabbat as part of their heritage and witness.\u2026<\/p>\n
How is it that Christendom adopted the \u201cfirst\u201d day as its day of worship? Some have held that the early believers gathered on Sunday morning to celebrate the resurrection and celebrated both the Sabbath and Sunday. However, it is said that the Church perceived that, under the New Covenant, the Sabbath had been abrogated and that Sunday was a proper replacement of the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
The most recent scholarship suggests that this explanation for the switch from Saturday to Sunday is mistaken. Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi has probably written the definitive work on all of the evidence involved.\u2026<\/p>\n
Messianic Jews must avoid a legalistic approach to Sabbath, where rules are imposed ad infinitum. However, if Sabbath is to be taken seriously, there are some basic principles which may be applied by our people:<\/p>\n
First, Sabbath should be a day of freedom from work, especially that work which is required for our economic and material security.\u2026<\/p>\n
Secondly, it is of spiritual value to mark the day off from other days by a special Friday evening meal, the lighting of candles and prayer.\u2026<\/p>\n
Sabbath is also an appropriate day to gather for worship and share the word exposited. It is a time as well for friends, fellowship and family.<\/p>\n
Much of what Juster states about the Sabbath has been dealt with earlier under \u201cIsrael Present\u201d (chapter X) and need not be repeated here. What is important to note is that Juster strongly feels that the observance of the Sabbath is mandatory today, that a good Messianic Jew would observe it and not to do so would question a Jewish believer\u2019s Jewish loyalties. He does believe that \u201cChristians are free to incorporate this principle on Sunday or other days.\u201d By \u201cChristians,\u201d Juster means Gentile Christians. This same freedom is not extended to Jewish believers, though obviously it would lead to two divisions of the Church: Jewish and Gentile, each with its own day of worship. Juster admits that Paul \u201callowed for freedom in regards to worship days\u201d but this was only \u201coutside of a Jewish context.\u201d It is true that Paul \u201cnowhere speaks against Jews who follow the Sabbath,\u201d but he never imposes it on them either. Concerning the switch from Saturday to Sunday, Juster relies uncritically on the work by Samuel Bacchiocchi. The latter author is a Seventh Day Adventist who is hardly objective on the issue and his work has been well refuted by the authors of From Sabbath to Lord\u2019s Day and so it is not as definitive as Juster claims.
\nAs to how the Sabbath should be observed, Juster makes three suggestions, only the first of which is from the Law of Moses in which the Sabbath is treated as a day of rest. The second (meal, candles, and prayer) and third (family and friends get together, corporate worship) are of non-biblical origin. This means that such observances are options and not mandatory and again, Rabbinic Judaism is not a criterion for Messianic Jews to determine what is mandatory and what is not.
\nThe rest of the chapter deals with various Jewish practices such as the feasts, tzitziot, tfillin, yarmulke or kippah, kosher and non-kosher foods, both from a biblical and rabbinic orientation. As long as these things are optional, there is no biblical problem though some of his exegesis, such as that of 1 Corinthians 11:2\u201316 is debatable. However, once they become mandatory, they have violated New Covenant teaching and a Jewish believer\u2019s freedom in the Messiah. The same can be said about the eighth chapter, \u201cExtra Biblical Practices,\u201d and the ninth chapter, \u201cJewish and Biblical Worship.\u201d
\nIn chapter ten, entitled, \u201cDangers To Be Faced,\u201d Juster states the following about legalism:<\/p>\n
This sense of \u201cmust\u201d produces a feeling of great restraint. Members of the Body who have a legalistic, critical bent (which is all too common among human beings) use conformity to a tradition as the basis for judging others. If a phrase is changed in a service, or a substitution made, or if a particular order is changed, there is a response of anger and intolerance. Others buckle under and conform. However, it will be with a diminished joy and a sense of feeling manipulated. Most Jewish people today are undesirous of a demand for regular conformity in all of the details of their life and worship. In addition, judgmentalism and rigid conformity requirements in life and worship destroy creativity. Where will there then be room for new prayers, songs, drama, and dance that God would desire in our midst?<\/p>\n
Worship material of value can be produced today as well as it was a thousand years ago. New material and style reflects our identity and expression today as Messianic Jews. It is also necessary. Ancient material roots us in our history.<\/p>\n
Love should be predominant in our midst. We should allow the Spirit of God to inspire one another toward the practices He lays on our hearts. It should be at God\u2019s pace, not by peer pressure. I personally may not eat shrimp, but if another Messianic Jew does, not thinking that the food lists have continuing validity today, I should not look at him with an eye of disapproval. We can share our leading in the Lord, but we must seek obedience or conformity only in clear Biblical directions. Legalism says \u201cmy way is the only right way,\u201d whether that way be modern or ancient. Legalism seeks to control others and cannot trust the Spirit to bring about God\u2019s desired ends. We must be on guard.<\/p>\n
This is a good warning. Juster would do well to apply it to some of his earlier chapters.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX II<\/p>\n
AN INTERCHANGE ON THE LAW OF MOSES AND HEBREW CHRISTIAN\/MESSIANIC JEWISH PRACTICE<\/p>\n
In August 1986, the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism held its Third International Consultation in Easneye, England. Daniel Juster presented a paper on \u201cThe Torah and Messianic Jewish Practice.\u201d This was followed by a response from this writer. Because of its relevance to the issues discussed here, both papers are presented in total.<\/p>\n
A. THE TORAH AND MESSIANIC JEWISH PRACTICE
\nby Daniel Juster<\/p>\n
PART ONE
\nINTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
Whether or not Messianic Jewish practice should be based on the Torah, and in what sense Torah is a locus for Jewish identity and practice is a source of no little controversy. Yet, having noted the controversy, it has been amazing to see how many leaders are yet calling for Jewish practice that is rooted nowhere else but in the Torah. This is true of people from many different persuasions. For example, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, perhaps the most noted dispensationalist theologian of Hebrew Christianity in the United States, argues for maintaining physical circumcision as rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, along with the celebration of the Jewish feasts. These practices are certainly rooted in Torah. Although Dr. Fruchtenbaum does not talk of Torah as prescriptive, yet he will talk of specific unique Jewish responsibilities for Jewish believers in Yeshua. Are these responsibilities rooted in Torah? We await his publication of Israelology in which he will present his outline and case for these responsibilities.
\nDr. Louis Goldberg of Moody Bible Institute, a moderate dispensationalist has written eloquently on this matter. Dr. Goldberg, as does Messianic Judaism in general, disassociates himself from any who would imply a salvific dimension to keeping commandments. Yet he is more than willing to speak of the moral principles of the law as having universal validity. This is the case with many new moderate dispensationalists. Dr. Goldberg also argues that the Torah, rightly applied for this dispensation, is still the foundation for or focus of Jewish identity.
\nNon-dispensationalists have also argued that the meaning of Jewish identity and lifestyle is rooted in the Torah. We should note some examples. Dr. James Hutchins, in his doctor\u2019s dissertation, The Case for Messianic Judaism, argued for the continued validity of the law, not only in its universal moral principles, but for giving direction for specifically Jewish living. Similar arguments are put forth by Dr. David Stern in many unpublished papers. The author himself has stated his agreement and perspective in several published writings whose arguments cannot be repeated here. Although some of us who have argued from a non-dispensationalist viewpoint have been called adherents of classical Covenant Theology, this is really an inadequate classification. My own experience leads me to affirm that most non-dispensational Messianic Jews cannot be so classed because of their disavowal of a spiritualizing approach to the Tenach. They hence affirm the literal fulfillment of prophetic promises to Israel. If we are to be classed at all with schools of Christian theology (which is of doubtful value), the writings of Dr. Walter Kaiser, called Promise Theology, might be a closer parallel. Daniel Fuller\u2019s recent Gospel and Law, Contrast or Continuum, is also helpful in this regard.
\nAlthough in this paper, of course, I shall tie Jewish practice based upon Torah to my own theological persuasions, it is worthwhile to take note of these amazing facts. Here we find writers coming from varied theological viewpoints arguing for the validity of Jewish practices. Certainly these practices, from circumcision to Passover, are rooted in Torah. Who could have predicted such twenty years ago? Despite our disagreements on the question of the rationale for Torah practices, our agreement for calling for such practices is an amazing fact. A further amazing fact is the proliferation of more or less indigenous congregations in Jewish communities worldwide. Not only is there a Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations in North America (of some fifty congregations), but mission organizations have gotten into the business of planting congregations geared to Jewish people. This includes older established missions such as the American Board of Missions to the Jews in the U.S.A. and the Church\u2019s Ministry among the Jews in Great Britain, as well as new missions such as Ariel Ministries and Jews for Jesus. What is amazing about congregations in North America, Great Britain, Israel and Australia is that they all practice varying measures of Jewish life and culture. Aspects of this cultural practice are rooted in Torah. How far we are from the view of David Baron that Jews must not celebrate the feasts and practice that which is rooted in the Torah because it would distort and take away from the Gospel! It was even argued that Jews alone of all cultures could not have an indigenous congregation.
\nOftentimes, our intuitive direction precedes an adequate theological rationale for what we are sensing. We cannot exhaustively either provide the rationale or the description of Torah-based practice for Messianic Jews. However, we will attempt to lay out what we believe are some significant points for developing such a rationale. We will attempt this by a number of theses.<\/p>\n
PART TWO
\nSEVEN THESES ON TORAH-BASED PRACTICES FOR MESSIANIC JEWS<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 1: God Has Not Done Away with His Law<\/p>\n
Any adequate approach to Messianic Jewish practice, indeed all Biblical Theology, needs to come to terms with the meaning of Torah. Aside from more radical forms of dispensationalism (as in classic Darbyite theology), Christian theology has generally held to the view that the Torah in its ethical teaching provides us with universally valid standards from God. This is in accord with Yeshua\u2019s own statement in Matthew 5:17\u201318. It is amazing how antinomians can interpret fulfillment as doing away with the Law despite these verses. Fulfillment here means to \u201cfill up the meaning of,\u201d or to bring to its highest meaning. It is exemplified by Yeshua\u2019s teaching on the Law in Matthew 5\u20137, and by the pattern of his life. Yet certainly the fact that God has not done away with his Torah has implications for Messianic Jewish life and practice. Is it only the ethical aspects of the Law that continue? Or are there other aspects that continue?<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 2: The New Covenant is Not Merely a Renewal of the Covenantal Material Given Through Moses<\/p>\n
The whole warp and woof of the New Covenant Scriptures demonstrate that through Yeshua, we enter into a new age. The new realities of this new age alter our relationship to the Mosaic Covenant and commandments. This alteration is not in God\u2019s basic ethical standards (Galatians 5:17\u201319) or in the gift and call of the Jewish people (Romans 11:28\u201329). These new realities are:
\n(1) The pouring out of the Spirit in fullness upon all who are willing with the Spirit\u2019s accompanying gracelets of power and giftedness.<\/p>\n
(2) The internalization of a motive that is in accordance with God\u2019s Torah described as the Law being written upon our hearts (Jeremiah 31:31ff).<\/p>\n
(3) The experience of our co-death and resurrection with Yeshua on the basis on his accomplished work (Romans 6, Galatians 2:20).<\/p>\n
(4) The acceptance of Gentiles into the community of faith by the New Covenant without requiring physical circumcision or specifically Jewish practices (Acts 9, 10, 15).<\/p>\n
These realities are so significant that we can no longer think of salvation as contingent upon or based upon external law keeping. This was never the purpose of the Law anyway. However, the New Covenant realities change our relation to the Law as a child to an adult (Galatians 3:23ff), from an external law to an internalized law (Jeremiah 31:31, Romans 10:5\u201310). Hence the old order of sacrifice and Temple is in the process of vanishing (Hebrews eight).<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 3: Fulfillment Does Not Eliminate the Presence of the Past<\/p>\n
Oscar Cullmann in Salvation History and Jacob Jocz argue well that much of Christian theology and practice misconstrued fulfillment in such a way that the practice of New Testament celebration was weak in its Old Testament content and reference. Cullmann himself argued that the whole of New Testament thinking is based upon concepts, meaning and events which can only be understood in the context of the Tenach. Hence, to properly understand and celebrate the meaning of fulfillment, there should be much greater content and reference to Old Testament content and meaning in New Covenant celebration.
\nGod did not spend two thousand years in cultural development in the history of Israel to provide a context for understanding the meaning of Yeshua only to do away with this context for understanding. This context needs to be present in our celebration of New Covenant meaning. Cullmann does not fully explain how this can be done. It is my view that this is a Messianic Jewish role especially. Through Passover celebration we understand the Passover Lamb. We do not forget the Exodus in remembering the resurrection, but we celebrate the death and resurrection of Yeshua in the context of the Passover-Exodus. Through Sabbath celebration we provide a living context for understanding and living out the meaning of life in trusting and resting in Him. None of this detracts from Yeshua but it brings out the meaning of Yeshua in greater fullness. All of salvation history is tied together, and Jewish life is a living illustration of salvation history. Messianic Jewish life is a living witness to all.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 4: The Dispensational Approach is Inadequate for a Biblical Messianic Jewish Theology<\/p>\n
The dispensational approach is inadequate in several key regards:<\/p>\n
(1) It posits two separate peoples of God with earthly and heavenly promises. Hence the Jewish believer in the Messiah is often seen as no longer part of God\u2019s purposes with Israel and its \u201cearthly promises.\u201d Is this Scriptural? When Scripture speaks of the relationship of Gentile believers to the believing Jews throughout history, it uses terms such as \u201cingrafted\u201d (Romans 11), \u201cbrought near to the covenants\u201d (Ephesians 2) and made part of the \u201ccommonwealth of Israel\u201d (Ephesians 2, RSV). Yet Scripture does still delineate a Jewish distinction. This is not, however, maintained by the concept that one is either a lost Jew, a lost Gentile or neither and part of the Church.<\/p>\n
(2) It opposes law to grace, making the Mosaic covenant the \u201cDispensation of Law\u201d. This distinction produces a theological ambivalence to the Mosaic writings in the heart of the Jewish believer who embraces this theology. Yet God never offered a covenant of law in the sense of an intended works-righteousness system. The Mosaic covenantal material was a covenant of grace which declared God\u2019s gracious act of salvation not based on Israel\u2019s merit, and called Israel to a moral, social and legal obedience as a response to this grace.<\/p>\n
(3) It leads to an ambivalence to Jewish life under the false conception that this would be \u201cmixing law and grace\u201d and \u201cgoing back under the \u2018Covenant of Law\u2019 \u201d.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 5: The Covenant Theology Approach is Inadequate for a Biblical Messianic Jewish Theology.<\/p>\n
Although Covenant Theology has rightly emphasized a high place for the Torah with regard to ethical standards, it left little place for Jewish life and practice because:<\/p>\n
(1) The Church had replaced Israel and was the new and true spiritual Israel.<\/p>\n
(2) There was a rigid distinction made between the moral and ceremonial law, the latter having been abolished. Jewish practices are eliminated as part of the ceremonial law.<\/p>\n
(3) There is a spiritualization of the Tenach seeking a deeper sense not intended by the human author. This spiritualization takes the promises given to Israel away from Israel and applies them to the Church. The return of the Jewish people to Israel is taken to refer to the gathering of the Church at the rapture. The promise of the land for Israel is spiritualized to speak of the inheritance of the Church in heaven. This style of interpretation is subjectivist! It leads to chaos in Biblical interpretation.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 6: The New Covenant Halakic Approach is the Proper Approach to Aid Us in Answering the Questions of the Relationship of Israel to the Church and Law to Grace and the Nature of Messianic Jewish Practice Based on Torah.<\/p>\n
What do we mean by the Halakic approach? Judaism has traditionally recognized that new situations required new applications of the Law. The new application leads to change in practice. This rabbinic interpretation and application is known as Halakah, the way to go. (We are not arguing that the rabbis made the right applications. Yeshua\u2019s conflict with the rabbis was in part based upon their misapplication of the Law, a false Halakah that contradicted the Scriptural Law.) All countries which have a system of morality and law must apply the law to new situations. Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:16\u201317 makes it clear that the whole Bible is relevant for \u201cdoctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.\u201d Paul was certainly thinking of the Torah and the Prophets, since the New Covenant Scriptures were hardly yet in existence! However, in the light of our second thesis, we have to ask how the Law applies in the radically new situation brought about by the death and resurrection of Yeshua, the outpouring of the Spirit, the writing of the Law upon the hearts of his followers, and the breaking open of the Covenants of redemption to include the Gentiles. How is each law relevant in the present situation.
\nThe Halakic approach recognizes the continuing validity of the Law under the New Covenant. However, because of the New Covenant order brought by Yeshua, our application of the Law will reflect what is appropriate under the New Covenant. Rather than seeing the Law as done away or segmenting the Law into rigid categories of ethical and ceremonial, we must first recognize that the whole Law had a spiritual and ethical purpose. As adults, however, with the internalized motive of the Spirit we can ask the question of the principle behind each law, the reason for it, or the spirit of the law (the law in heart intent or essence). This intent of the Law is discovered in studying the Torah in its original historical context and noting its application throughout the prophets and in the New Covenant Scriptures. This also requires creative thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. At times, rabbinic application will provide helpful natural extensions and applications of the Torah. At other times, rabbinic Halakah will be found to be seriously wrong. The Talmud is, for all its wisdom and insight, often a childish book in many regards. The legalistic mind is a childish, though often brilliant mind. Did Paul have this in mind in Galatians 3:23ff?
\nThere is already such New Testament precedent for New Covenant Halakah. We find that the grace available under the New Covenant stiffens the law against divorce and enjoins the high ideal of monogamous marriage found in Genesis 2. Paul\u2019s use of the Law in arguing for adequate provision for preachers of the good news is an example of Messianic Jewish Halakah. The principle of kindness in meeting the needs of laborers is found throughout the context of Leviticus 19 which speaks of \u201cnot muzzling the ox that treads out the wheat\u201d. How much more important is this principle of providing for the one who labors applicable to humans laborers! How much more does this apply to those who live by the gospel! (Many have noted the rabbinic style of Paul\u2019s argument in this 1 Corinthians 9 passage.) A study of the New Testament will also show that those sins requiring death or exile in the Tenach require disfellowshipping in the New Covenant. The New Testament also indicates that there are laws that are universally incumbent upon all believers while there are other commands that are apart of the gift and call of God to the Jewish people (Acts 15, Romans 11:29). Although not strictly an ethical\/ceremonial distinction, there is a distinction parallel to the rabbinic idea of Noachide responsibilities for all human beings and a Jewish responsibility that includes practices and lifestyle dynamics not to be imposed upon Gentiles. Acts 15, 21 and 27 and Romans 11 make this clear. Hence a Jewish believer still has Jewish responsibilities. The New Testament never imposes this lifestyle on Gentiles, but assumes continued Torah lifestyle among Jewish followers of Yeshua in a New Covenant context.
\nThe Halakic approach to the commands of the Tenach asks of each commandment (this should be done with New Covenant commands also):<\/p>\n
(1) What does the command mean in the context given?<\/p>\n
(2) Is there an underlying principle behind the command and what is it? (e.g. building a fence on a roof is a command given under the principle of taking measures to safeguard the lives of other people.)<\/p>\n
(3) To whom is this command given?<\/p>\n
(4) How do we apply this command in a New Covenant order? We should note that the New Covenant transforms all the commands into a dimension of promise, since it promises the power or ability to live in full obedience to God.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 7: The Halakic Approach Yields a Jewish Life in Fulfilled Form.<\/p>\n
The Halakic New Covenant Approach gives us the practical means of applying those laws specifically given as part of Israel\u2019s life and witness. Here are some examples:<\/p>\n
(1) In general, Jewish life and identity is based on the remembrance of Jewish history and what God has done for us as part of that history. Israel\u2019s feasts, celebrations, and practices are largely connected to a corporate remembrance of which each individual is a part. However, all celebration in a New Covenant context must be Yeshua-centric since his life, death and resurrection is the climax of salvation history. This history is the context for understanding his fulfillment and looking forward to the eschatological fulfillments yet to come.<\/p>\n
(2) We can note as an example in this regard how Passover can be celebrated. We still remember the constitutive act of our national birth in the Passover-Exodus stories. We do not forget the past work of God in our history because Yeshua has come. However, he is the centre of our seder as the Passover Lamb. Passover commands in the Tenach say that no uncircumcised person should partake of the seder with the Jewish people. However, New Covenant realities have altered the situation. The born again Christian in Yeshua, for example, has a circumcised heart and is raised with Yeshua to the heavenly sphere of the presence of God through connection to the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:2). He is washed and clean, a temple of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). Hence in the New Covenant order physically uncircumcised Gentiles who believe in Yeshua are invited to our seder!<\/p>\n
(3) The Sabbath is also seen in its continuing validity for Messianic Jews in the New Covenant Halakic approach. Christian Halakah (if we might venture the term) has rightly taught that the principle of one day of rest in seven is needful for our lives as long as we are in our physical bodies. However, the Sabbath in its specific seventh day rest is a sign of the covenant between God and Israel. It is a memorial of the creation and the Exodus. In a New Covenant context, the Sabbath is practiced with a Yeshua-centric emphasis. This emphasis includes the teaching of Yeshua on the Sabbath and Hebrews 4 which enjoins us to enter into a life of trust and rest in him. We also look forward to the world to come, the Sabbath Age of God, wherein the people of God experience the fullness of rest.<\/p>\n
(4) Similar reapplications take place for Yom Kippur, for we fast and pray for Israel\u2019s redemption through Yeshua as well as giving time to renew our commitments to God. We emphasize Yeshua as High Priest and Sacrifice. Sukkot not only looks back upon God\u2019s provision in the wilderness when we lived in tents and God provided for all of our needs; it looks forward to the establishment of the universal worldwide rule of Yeshua (Zechariah 14). Shavuot not only speaks of the first harvest and the giving of the Law, but of the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 2) and the fullness of the Spirit to be experienced in the age to come. This provides the Body of the Messiah with a lifestyle that reflects Thesis No. 3, that fulfillment does not eliminate the presence of the meaning of the past.<\/p>\n
(5) Even Tallit and Tefillin are similar in application. The principle of the Tallit is to remember our royal priestly call and to live accordingly (Numbers 15). This takes on an enhanced meaning in Yeshua. The principle behind the Tefillin command is to take practical steps to remember the commands of the Torah, especially to walk in loving God with all of our hearts. Whether interpreted as originally meant to be followed literally or figuratively, we certainly can agree on the importance of the principle underlying the command.<\/p>\n
(6) We might note as well that if the corporate identity of a people is their history and the culture arising therefrom, then we as Messianic Jews are connected to this history and find our identity in the context of this history. We are the people who went through the Red Sea, who entered the land of Canaan under Joshua, who went into captivity to Babylon, and who as a nation corporately rejected the redemption provided by Yeshua. Our identity is not only the memory of what God has done for us (the feasts) but, as Messianic Jews, is the specific corporate dimensions of sin that we needed to be redeemed from! Hence the sufferings of our people are our sufferings, its concern for national homeland is our concern. Its culture is our culture so far as it is consistent with the Scriptures. However, more than all of this our identity with our people is born of the hope that God has not abandoned Israel, the Jewish people. Our people will yet accept Yeshua and say, \u201cBlessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord\u201d (Matthew 23). Hence we identify with our people because of a living hope for their full redemption with all that this implies for world redemption (Romans 11:15\u201331).<\/p>\n
The New Covenant Halakic approach to Torah in general (the whole Bible is Torah\u2014the instruction of God), and to Jewish practice in particular is in my view the most fruitful approach to the Torah. It is a Jewish approach rather than a foreign theological system imposed on the Scriptures. It reflects the unity of the Bible and the continuity of salvation history. This approach frees us from legalism, but not from the proper role of law. It emphasizes the Spirit so as to avoid the childish and soulish. It solves problems in exegesis and debate from the impasse between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. It is my hope that this approach will be more firmly established among Jewish disciples of Yeshua in the days ahead.<\/p>\n
B. A RESPONSE TO DAN JUSTER\u2019S
\n\u201cTHE TORAH AND MESSIANIC JEWISH PRACTICE\u201d
\n(Revised)<\/p>\n
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
\nAriel Ministries
\nTustin, California<\/p>\n
This response to Dan Juster\u2019s paper will follow the order and outline of the paper itself. One general observation is to point out that the paper makes many dogmatic assertions without any real attempt to prove such assertions. Other views are categorically dismissed on the basis that they are not \u201cadequate\u201d views for a presupposed \u201cMessianic Judaism,\u201d but there is no biblical attempt to substantiate this presupposed Messianic Judaism. Furthermore, there is no attempt to interact exegetically with passages of Scripture which are the basis of the other views. This is a major weakness of Juster\u2019s paper.<\/p>\n
PART ONE
\nINTRODUCTION<\/p>\n
In the introduction, Juster refers to me as teaching that certain Jewish practices are the responsibility of Jewish believers to observe. It is true that I believe that those things rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant are prescriptive and mandatory. I do not make those things rooted in the Torah as mandatory, but they are optional. The issue must be clarified. It is not: may a Jewish believer today observe things rooted in the Torah (e.g., Passover, Tabernacles, Sabbath, etc.)? The issue is: is it mandatory? This issue must be clarified in order to avoid confusion.
\nJuster speaks of \u201cnew moderate dispensationalists\u201d who teach that \u201cthe moral principles of the law as having universal validity\u201d and cites Ryrie\u2019s Dispensationalism Today (pp. 107\u2013108). But Juster clearly misunderstands Ryrie. Ryrie is a firm believer that the entire Law of Moses, all 613 commandments, have been rendered inoperative. Ryrie, like all \u201cmoderate dispensationalists,\u201d draws a distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, the commands of the New Covenant which are applicable to a New Covenant believer. Juster\u2019s citation is from a section of the book in which Ryrie discusses the moral principles of the Sermon on the Mount and not the Law of Moses. (More will be said about the relationship of the moral law and the Law of Moses in Dispensationalism later.)
\nAlso in the introduction, Juster keeps referring to circumcision as being rooted in the Torah, and this may imply that I am inconsistent in teaching that circumcision is mandatory today for all Jews, including Jewish believers. However, the Torah only began with Moses and the Exodus. Circumcision is not rooted in the Mosaic Law, but in the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17) and that is the basis for its continuous practice for Jews, not the Law of Moses.
\nJuster also states: \u201cWhat is amazing about congregations \u2026 is that they all practice varying measures of Jewish life and culture. Aspects of this cultural practice are rooted in the Torah.\u201d This is true, but many other practices, at times the majority of them, are rooted not in the Torah, but in Rabbinic Judaism. Torah only commanded that the Sabbath be kept as a day of rest. How does a Messianic Jew keep the Sabbath, if he does? He probably does rest, although he may have to drive to his local messianic congregation. But usually he also lights the candles, breaks and eats the challah, and drinks the wine. None of the latter three are in the Torah, but all are rabbinic innovations. The same is true for many other practices. This does not mean that they are necessarily wrong in themselves. But the issue remains: are they obligatory or are they optional?<\/p>\n
PART TWO
\nSEVEN THESES ON TORAH-BASED PRACTICES FOR MESSIANIC JEWS<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 1: God Has Not Done Away with His Law<\/p>\n
This section of Juster\u2019s paper contains three weaknesses. The first weakness is that he never define clearly what he means by \u201claw\u201d or \u201cTorah.\u201d If taken in normal usage, it applies to the 613 commandments found in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. If this is so, then not even Juster accepts his own thesis since he must believe in the doing away in some form of many of these commandments, if not most. The commandments concerning priesthood and sacrifice are only one example and others can be cited (clothing laws, etc.). Regardless of what semantics may be used to describe this change (superseded, brought to greater fulfillment, bringing out its true meaning, et. al.). It is clear that a great many of the 613 commandments no longer apply as they are written. If by \u201cTorah\u201d Juster means only the ethical standards, then his citation of Matthew 5:17\u201318 does not prove this. Verse 19 adds:<\/p>\n
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall he called great in the kingdom of heaven.<\/p>\n
Certainly these least commandments include more than merely the ethical laws and the emphasis is on the entire Torah, all 613 commandments.
\nThe second weakness is that his treatment of Matthew 5:17\u201318 is insufficient. To claim that \u201cfulfillment\u201d here means \u201cto fill up the meaning of, and\/or to bring to its highest meaning,\u201d is purely arbitrary and a conclusion apparently reached more on the basis of a previous preconception rather than a study of Matthew\u2019s own usage of the term. Throughout Matthew\u2019s gospel, pleirosai is used in reference to fulfilling prophecy and so bringing it to an end, Matthew 1:22\u201323 states that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was \u201cfulfilled,\u201d and this brought that prophecy to an end and so nothing in the future will fulfill it. Other examples can be cited (e.g., 2:15). Robert Gundry, after a careful study of Matthew\u2019s usage of the word, states:<\/p>\n
Fulfillment might refer to the accomplishment of prophecy in contrast with abolishment by failure to fulfill them. (Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, p. 80).<\/p>\n
The most basic and frequent meaning of pleiroo is \u201cto fulfill\u201d and by itself does not carry the concept \u201cto bring to its highest meaning.\u201d More true to the text is Stanley Toussaint\u2019s observation:<\/p>\n
The verb \u201cto fulfill\u201d (pleiroo) has the same basic meaning as it did in Matthew 2:15 where it means \u201cto establish completely.\u201d Rather than destroying the Law and the prophets, he establishes them. This he did by (1) perfectly conforming his life to its high standards, and (2) retrieving its true meaning from the niceties of its rabbinic interpretation.<\/p>\n
Juster\u2019s statement, \u201cIt is amazing how antinomians can interpret fulfillment as doing away with the Law despite these verses,\u201d is beside the point. Those who believe that the Law of Moses as a rule of life for the believer has been done away (or better, rendered inoperative\u2014katargeo) do not believe that this happened with the coming of the Messiah, or by His life, but by His death. As long as He was alive, He was under the Torah and had to fulfill it and obey every commandment applicable to Him. The statement of Matthew 5:17\u201319 (verse 19 must not be ignored) was made while He was living, and as long as He was living He had to obey the Torah in the manner that Moses commanded and not in the ways that the rabbis had reinterpreted it. Even while He was living, He already implied the doing away of the Law. One example is Mark 7:19: This He said making all meats clean.
\nCan it be made any clearer than this that at least the laws of kashrut have been done away? Again, Juster himself must admit that great parts of the Torah no longer apply in the manner prescribed by Moses. So, have they been done away with or not? Nor is Juster fair with the use of the term \u201canti-nomian.\u201d Those who believe that the Law of Moses no longer applies, still believe in law and insist that there are commandments to live by, but they are those of the Law of the Messiah (Gal. 6:2; Rom. 8:2) and not the Law of Moses.
\nThe third weakness is that Juster does not deal with the Scriptures used to show that the Law of Moses has indeed been rendered inoperative. These passages (e.g., Rom. 7:1\u20136; 10:4; Gal. 3:19; 3:24\u20134:7; Heb. 7:11\u201312, 18; 2 Cor. 3:2\u201311; Eph. 2:11\u201316, etc.) cannot simply be ignored. Citing Matthew 5:17\u201318 is insufficient, either to explain away these passages or to establish this first thesis or to prove this conclusion \u201cthat God has not done away with His Torah.\u201d
\nJuster proceeds to state that the ethical aspects have continued and then asks, \u201c\u2026 are there other aspects that continue?\u201d The implication is that the answer is yes. Since no criterion was provided to determine what does or does not, it would seem that the selection would be highly subjective. I cannot help but wonder if the selection of which of the 613 commandments still apply will be based on Jewish-rabbinic prejudices (e.g., Shabbat, kashrut, tfillin, etc.).<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 2: The New Covenant is Not Merely a Renewal of the Covenantal Material Given Through Moses<\/p>\n
What Juster says here is good as far as it goes, but it is incomplete in light of New Testament revelation. The New Covenant is just that\u2014it is new. It is a \u201csecond\u201d covenant, distinct from the \u201cfirst\u201d covenant according to Hebrews 8:7. It is clearly stated to be distinct from the covenant made at Sinai (not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt \u2026 [Jer. 31:32]). The fact that there are some similarities between the Old and the New does not mean that a part of the Old has been retained by the New. One\u2019s new car may have similarities with one\u2019s old car, but this does not mean that parts of the old car are in the new one. The new car is a totally different car. Even if one buys the same make, model and year, it is still another car. In this section, Juster admits that the New Covenant has clearly altered the Old to a very great extent so as to do away with most of the Book of Leviticus, among other things. A listing of the 613 will show that the majority no longer apply. So, what is left? Juster states the \u201cbasic ethical standards\u201d: but if these \u201cbasic ethical standards\u201d are part of the New Covenant, what is really left of the Old as far as mandatory practice is concerned? Juster has already implied that more than just ethical standards continue. If the law in its entirety is still in effect, then the New Covenant clearly violates and contradicts the Law of Moses in a number of areas, allowing what the law forbade and forbidding what the law allowed. For example, the law forbade any uncircumcised Gentile to participate at the Passover. The New Covenant actually forbids Gentile circumcision for religious or spiritual reasons. So now an uncircumcised Gentile may be invited to the seder. This is not merely a new application because of changing historical situations. It is a contradiction and a violation of the Law of Moses. So Juster must agree that some portions (great portions?) of the Law of Moses have in some way been done away and admit that there is a change in the Jewish believer\u2019s relationship to the law.
\nUnder point three in this section, Juster mentions our co-death with Yeshua, citing Romans 6 and Galatians 2:20; but also germane to this discussion is Romans 7:1\u20136, which teaches that our co-death has freed us from the law:<\/p>\n
But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held \u2026 (v. 6).<\/p>\n
In the closing paragraph, Juster states, \u201cThe New Covenant realities change our relation to the Law as a child to an adult (Gal. 3:23ff).\u201d But this passage goes much further than that. The law is the tutor. Once adulthood has been reached, we are no longer under this tutor. As for his citation of Hebrews eight in the same paragraph, the passage itself does not limit the \u201cvanishing away\u201d to \u201cthe old order of sacrifice and temple,\u201d but includes the whole law. Hebrews eight cites Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, which in turn states that the New Covenant will replace the old one made when they were taken out of Egypt, which is the one \u201cvanishing away.\u201d It is unlikely that the statement of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 is limited to the priesthood and sacrifices only.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 3: Fulfillment Does Not Eliminate the Presence of the Past<\/p>\n
Citing Cullmann or Jocz is not biblical proof positive. It can be agreed that those men argued for the position claimed by Juster. However, this can not be the basis for developing doctrine, but rather the positive and declarative statements of Scripture are necessary. Furthermore, the context of understanding is one thing, and rightly important. But to imply from that that the law is still mandatory is quite another matter.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 4: The Dispensational Approach is Inadequate for a Biblical Messianic Jewish Theology<\/p>\n
As one who espouses Dispensationalism, I can only say that this is Juster\u2019s weakest presentation. There is a failure to distinguish between what is held by some Dispensationalists as over against what is germane to Dispensationalism. Rightly understood, Dispensationalism is actually a very adequate approach for a biblical messianic Jewish theology because of its insistence on a consistent distinction of Israel and the Church and Jews and Gentiles in all ages.
\nHis first statement describing Dispensationalism is very broad and sweeping. True, some Dispensationalists make a distinction between a \u201cheavenly\u201d and \u201cearthly\u201d people with \u201cheavenly\u201d and \u201cearthly\u201d promises. This is not true of all Dispensationalists, nor is this germane to Dispensationalism. What is true is that Dispensationalism does posit two separate peoples of God. Juster himself may not be far from this position. When he states that \u201cwhen Scripture speaks of the relationship of Gentile believers to the believing Jews throughout history, it uses terms such as \u2018ingrafted\u2019 (Rom. 11), \u2018brought near to the covenants\u2019 (Eph. 2), and made part of the \u2018commonwealth of Israel\u2019 (Eph. 2).\u201d Except for the later, this is all true. It is also good Dispensationalism, but what about unbelieving Jews? Are they still the chosen people of God? Juster did not address himself to that question, so I do not know where he stands on that issue. But if he is like the majority of Messianic Jews I know, then his answer is probably yes. If so, then unbelieving Israel and the Church are both in some respect God\u2019s peoples, though not in a salvific sense, which would only be true of the latter. If all this is so, does not Juster also believe in two peoples of God?
\nJuster states further, \u201cYet Scripture does still delineate a Jewish distinction.\u201d This too is good Dispensationalism, since consistent Dispensationalism insists on a consistent distinction between Israel and the Church, and this includes a distinction of Jews and Gentiles in the Church. A Dispensationalist who states (in Juster\u2019s words), \u201cone is either a lost Jew, a lost Gentile, or neither and part of the church\u201d is an inconsistent Dispensationalist. Such a view is not germane to Dispensationalism, nor is it only Dispensationalists who make such statements.
\nJuster\u2019s second objection to Dispensationalism is that it \u201copposes law to grace\u201d and that this \u201cdistinction produces a theological ambivalence to the Mosaic writings in the heart of the Jewish believer who embraces this theology.\u201d Nowhere in this section does Juster reject Dispensationalism on exegetical grounds, but on the basis that the dispensational Jewish believer does not follow Juster\u2019s view of the Law of Moses. Juster makes no attempt here to deal with Scriptures that do show an antithesis between law and grace such as John 1:17 (For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ), or Romans 6:14 (\u2026 for ye are not under law, but under grace), etc.
\nThat the law was not a \u201cworks-righteousness system\u201d is agreed by Dispensationalists who view the law as a rule of life and not as a way of salvation. I am not sure what Juster means when he states that the dispensational Jewish believer becomes \u201cambivalent\u201d to the writings of Moses. Does he mean that we do not take it seriously and do not study it? This is not true. Does he mean that we feel no obligation to keep it, though we may choose to do so? This is true, but this does not make it wrong. Juster himself does not believe that most of the 613 commandments are still mandatory. Has he become \u201cambivalent\u201d to these?
\nA simple explanation of the dispensational viewpoint on the law at this point may help to clarify things. (The following is a summary of Robert P. Lightner\u2019s chapter on \u201cA Dispensational View of the Law of Moses\u201d in his article entitled, \u201cA Dispensational Response to Theonomy.\u201d)<\/p>\n
1. Dispensationalists believe that the Law of Moses in its entirety has been done away with as a rule of life; it has been set aside and is not operative as a stewardship or a way by which God manages His household affairs today.<\/p>\n
2. The Law of Moses was given to Israel and not the Church.<\/p>\n
3. The Law of Moses is a unit and cannot be divided into two-fold, three-fold, or four-fold systems by which part of the law is retained and part done away. That the law contained legislation related to Israel\u2019s moral, religious, and civic life is not disputed; however, when parts are divided to support the contention that some of the law is still operative as a rule of life today, while other parts are not, then a totally new and unwarranted concept is introduced that is foreign to the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
4. Among the purposes of the law is included:<\/p>\n
a. To reveal God\u2019s holiness;<\/p>\n
b. To unify and distinguish Israel as a nation;<\/p>\n
c. To provide a basis for Israel\u2019s walk and worship of God;<\/p>\n
d. To expose the sinfulness of man;<\/p>\n
e. To provide atonement by the shedding of blood;<\/p>\n
f. To serve as a middle wall of partition to keep Gentiles from enjoying Israel\u2019s blessings as Gentiles; and<\/p>\n
g. To reveal the Messiah.<\/p>\n
5. As to the relationship of the moral law of God and the Law of Moses, the moral law of God refers to those eternal principles that reflect the nature of God. Dispensationalists do not believe that the moral law of God terminated at Calvary, nor do they believe that the moral law began with Moses or that the moral law and the Ten Commandments are identical. The moral law is not equivalent to the Mosaic Law. However, the Law of Moses, which was \u201cadded because of transgressions,\u201d included the moral law along with the ceremonial, civil, criminal, sanitary, and government laws. The moral law existed before Moses and continues after the cross. Adam violated the moral law of God long before Moses. Satan violated the moral law before Adam. To do what the Ten Commandments forbade did not first begin with Moses except the Sabbath commandment (which was itself more ceremonial than moral). It was always wrong to do those things. The Law of Moses embodied the moral law, as does the Law of the Messiah, but it did not originate with it.<\/p>\n
6. The Law of Moses was a rule of life for Israel until the Messiah died, it was not a means of salvation, but a modus operandi, the way and means by which God managed his affairs on earth.<\/p>\n
7. The law is now ended. This is based on an exegesis of the passages cited earlier.<\/p>\n
For the above reasons, Dispensationalism is very adequate for a Messianic Jewish theology, because it takes the statements of the New Covenant about the Law of Moses seriously. Furthermore, its insistence that there is still a Jewish distinctive today is very adequate for a distinctive Jewish lifestyle.
\nAs to Juster\u2019s third point that \u201cit leads to an ambivalence to Jewish life under the false conception that this would be \u2018mixing law and grace,\u2019 \u201d this is simply not true to experience. Dispensational Jewish believers are not behind others in Jewish lifestyles and sometimes are even more traditional than others (e.g. compare the Fruchtenbaum Passover Haggadah with Juster\u2019s Passover Haggadah and see which one is more traditional). But there is a clear recognition by the dispensational Jewish believer that these practices, whether rooted in Torah or Rabbinic Judaism, are optional and not mandatory. If this is the meaning of \u201cambivalence,\u201d at least it is also biblical. Dispensational messianic congregations (e.g., Beth Ariel Fellowship of Los Angeles, Kehilat Ariel of San Diego, and Kehilat Ha-Mashiah of Portland) lead as much a Jewish lifestyle as others. Perhaps flexibility would be a better word choice.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 5: The Covenant Theology Approach is Inadequate for a Biblical Messianic Jewish Theology<\/p>\n
While I tend to agree with this thesis, it should be addressed by one who espouses Covenant Theology, which I do not.<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 6: The New Covenant Halakic Approach is the Proper Approach to Aid us in Answering the Questions of the Relationship of Israel to the Church and Law to Grace and the Nature of Messianic Jewish Practice Based on Torah<\/p>\n
It is true that \u201cJudaism has traditionally recognized that new situations required new applications of the Law,\u201d but does this make it a valid criterion for the Jewish believer? What if a new practice is not a new application, but an actual contradiction of the Law of Moses (e.g., such as making all meats clean)? Yeshua\u2019s conflict with the rabbis was not merely over misapplication of the law, but over the authority of the Mishnah as a whole (Mark seven). What is happening in the New Testament is not merely a new situation requiring a new application of the old law. It is much more than that. It is the introduction of a new law altogether, which makes the other \u201cold\u201d (Hebrews 8:1\u201313). It is a new law that contradicts the old in many areas and would be in violation of the Law of Moses if that law was still in effect (e.g., Gentile circumcision, all meats clean, et al.).
\nJuster states that the \u201cHalakic approach recognizes the continuing validity of the Law under the New Covenant.\u201d This may be true, and for that reason this very approach is suspect. In what way is the law a \u201ccontinuing validity\u201d? As an obligation? It may be halakic, but by itself this does not make it biblical.
\nWhat Juster appears to be calling for is a study of each individual commandment of the 613 to see how it applies or can be applied today. In essence, he seems to be calling for a new \u201cGreat Synagogue\u201d or a new \u201cSchool of the Sophrim.\u201d But this will result in a great deal of subjectivity as attempts are made to determine which commandments still apply, and if so, how? The product will be a new Mishnah. Furthermore, if those conclusions become mandatory for all Jewish believers, then this will result in a new Pharisaism. (In a paper presented by a representative of the UMJC to the North American Committee of the LCJE, the Sabbath has already become mandatory for all Jewish believers.) And if a Jewish believer chooses to do otherwise, is he sinning?
\nTo claim that all this can be achieved by \u201ccreative thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit\u201d is naive. All kinds of ideas are postulated by those who claim to have beers \u201cled of the Lord.\u201d Unless this new \u201cSchool of the Sophrim\u201d receives direct revelation from God, the result will be one of subjective conclusions based on a presupposition that the Law of Moses still applies and all will claim to have received guidance from the Holy Spirit. Nor is there likely to be clear agreement as to what points of rabbinic halachah will be helpful or harmful.
\nThe New Covenant postulates a far simpler solution. The Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative as a rule of life. The Law of the Messiah is the rule of life for the believer today, and it contains enough commandments to keep both Jewish and Gentile believers busy all the days of their lives. Furthermore, the Jewish believer may keep aspects of the Law of Moses and even Rabbinic Judaism on a voluntary, but not obligatory, basis.
\nJuster states that the \u201cJewish believer has Jewish responsibilities,\u201d and that the \u201cNew Testament never imposes this life-style on Gentiles but assumes continued Torah life-style among Jewish followers of Yeshua in a New Covenant context.\u201d If by \u201cassumes\u201d Juster means it is optional, then well and good. If he means it is mandatory, that is a different matter altogether. Furthermore, Juster does not list what these responsibilities are for a Jewish believer, though not for a Gentile believer, and such a list is crucial to see just where this new halakic approach is leading. Also, if the Law of Moses is mandatory for the Jewish believer, but not the Gentile, is not Juster postulating two peoples of God with two different law codes? This would be the very thing for which he had earlier criticized Dispensationalists. If the Sabbath commandment is applied differently for Jewish believers (who must keep the seventh day of the week) than for Gentile believers (who are only required to keep one in seven days), then the law is not applied equally to all believers. Citing Acts 14, 21 and 27 does not prove duster\u2019s contention. These passages only show historically what the Jewish believers in the land practiced, but they say nothing about the mandatory nature of those practices.
\nThe four steps Juster proposes to determine how the 613 commandments can be made mandatory in the twentieth century would in essence mean a rewriting of the Law of Moses. In the end, the keeping of the law will not be on the basis of the words of Moses \u201cas it is written.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thesis No. 7: The Halakic Approach Yields a Jewish Life in Fulfilled Form<\/p>\n
Again, if the conclusions of the halakic approach were to become mandatory, it would result in a Messianic Jewish Mishnah. It would be a tool for condemning those Jewish believers who do not follow these new precepts as leading a life of disobedience to the Torah and\/or living a life of unfulfilled Jewishness.
\nThe concluding paragraph makes a number of unwarranted claims on behalf of the halakic approach, stating that it is \u201ca Jewish approach rather than a foreign theological system imposed on the Scriptures.\u201d It is certainly a rabbinic approach, but not necessarily a true Jewish one, or even less so, a biblical one. Juster claims that this \u201capproach frees us from legalism,\u201d but in reality it will lead to it (e.g., Sabbath is mandatory for Jewish believers) by imposing on the Jewish believer exactly what the Messiah has freed him from. Juster further claims that this approach \u201csolves problems in exegesis and debate from the impasse between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology.\u201d In reality, it will do neither. No hermeneutical system that can be consistently and objectively applied is provided and the exegesis of many passages cited earlier is conspicuously absent. This halakic approach is actually an imposition of a foreign rabbinic theological frame of reference on the New Covenant, and will not solve the exegetical problems.
\nDispensationalism is a natural conclusion derived from a literal hermeneutic consistently applied. From conclusions derived with this hermeneutic, it is evident that the Jewish believer is free from the law and has a choice \u201cto keep or not to keep\u201d in these areas. This approach allows for a variety of Messianic Jewish expressions and a variety of Jewish lifestyles rather than imposing one system upon all, and it avoids a potentially endless number of man-made laws.
\nIt is my hope that, rather than creating a new Mishnah, Jewish believers will study and teach the Law of the Messiah as found in the New Covenant, understanding and communicating it within its Jewish cultural and historical context. By allowing freedom and a variety of Jewish lifestyles, this will lead to equal acceptance of each other and unity in diversity. But if only one type of \u201cJewish lifestyle\u201d is accepted as an absolute norm, it will cause divisions not only between Jewish and Gentile believers, but also between Jewish believers themselves. May God keep us from that.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX III<\/p>\n
AN INTERCHANGE ON HEBREW CHRISTIAN\/MESSIANIC JEWISH CONGREGATIONS<\/p>\n
In February 1985, the Grace Community Church of Los Angeles, California issued a paper condemning the establishment of Messianic Jewish congregations. Their paper and this writer\u2019s response is reproduced in this section. While the church is dispensational, it is not consistent with its Dispensationalism. Furthermore, what they call \u201cthe American Messianic Synagogue Movement\u201d does not exist by that organizational name. The issue they raise actually deals with congregations. The following is their paper.<\/p>\n
A. THE AMERICAN MESSIANIC SYNAGOGUE MOVEMENT:
\nDEFICIENCIES, MISTAKES, AND ERRORS
\nIN LIGHT OF THE SCRIPTURES
\nElders Council Handling Outreach
\nGrace Community Church
\nFebruary 1985<\/p>\n
This position paper does not purport to exhaustively cover all the issues that have been raised, especially over the last 15 years, pertaining to the phenomenon of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement. Articles, journals, books, seminars, and consultations abound in profusion on this topic. One of the most widely discussed topics in missiology in recent years is contextualization, and certainly much of the current impetus of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement has been derived from the helpful and controversial applications of contextualization to the modern missionary enterprise.
\nNeither does this position paper intend to deal comprehensively with all the theological and biblical arguments which could be raised by the elders in the Outreach Dept. of Grace Church against some of the excesses of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement. Many good things have come as a result of the increased attention and sensitivity given to Jews around the USA, which this movement has helped foster. The purpose of this paper is simply to list in summary fashion 12 important theological and biblical issues pertaining to this movement and to invite participants in the movement, either those directly in its leadership or those indirectly on its fringe, to respond to these 12 points. We need to understand what others are thinking, why they would hold to positions the Bible would appear not to sanction, and how they would answer these 12 points from a Scriptural perspective. From our interpretation of the Bible, based on the historico-grammatical method of interpretation, there appear to be grave deficiencies, mistakes, and errors in the American Messianic Synagogue Movement. We openly invite those of varying points of view to respond to these concerns, and we anticipate fruitful, future discussions.
\nThe following concerns are not listed in any order in particular. They come out of the study and teaching of two of the professors of Talbot Theological Seminary (which is closely affiliated with Grace Community Church), Dr. Charles L. Feinberg and Prof. Marc T. Mueller, as well as a number of the pastoral elders and lay elders of the Elders Council Handling Outreach of Grace Community Church.<\/p>\n
1. The Lack of Definition of the Title \u201cJew\u201d<\/p>\n
It is a commonly known fact that among Jews themselves there is no universal agreement as to who or what constitutes a \u201cJew.\u201d Is it a political, national, religious, or theological title? The simpler a word is, the more possible definitions it can have. And so it would seem is the word \u201cJew\u201d to 20th century man. Even the modern state of Israel has been unable to issue an official declaration of its definition of a Jew.
\nBut the heart of the matter focuses not upon what a Jew is but upon what a true Jew is. Of course, \u201cJew\u201d is a national designation; but according to the New Testament it is primarily a spiritual designation. Even though we believe the nation of Israel still has a place in modern prophecy and the Jews as a nation are still in line to receive national blessings in the future, a true Jew is primarily a spiritual designation. In Romans 2:18\u201329a the Apostle Paul clearly states:<\/p>\n
\u201cFor he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
Paul restates this point in Galatians 3:28 when he says, \u201cThere is neither Jew nor Greek, \u2026 for you are all one in Christ Jesus.\u201d The New Testament clearly teaches that a true Jew is one who is a Jew spiritually in Christ. While a believing Gentile doesn\u2019t become a Jew, he does become a spiritual \u201cSon of Abraham\u201d with all the inherent spiritual blessings which God intended for the true Jew. Even Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, was not circumcised until late in life (Gen. 17:24), years after he had put aside his graven images, followed the Lord, and believed in Him. Abraham did not revel in his Jewishness; in fact God simply \u201cmade\u201d him a Jew. No Jews existed before him. Abraham demonstrates that from the very beginning God intended that to be Jewish meant to have a saving, spiritual relationship with the one true God and not simply one who ascribed to outward form.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement give a fundamentally different meaning to the word \u201cJew\u201d than Paul does in Rom. 2:28\u201329? If the only true Jews are those who are Jews spiritually, then the modern ethnic uniqueness of the Jew is of no account. Why revel in the outward externals, if God, looking on the heart, says all believers are the same in Christ? And if most of the Jews that the proponents of this movement are seeking to reach are presently non-Christians, then according to the New Testament they are not true Jews anyway. Why should we pump up such ethnic pride and tell them they are one thing when God says they are something else? Should we not treat them the same way God treated Abraham, the father of their race?<\/p>\n
2. Failure to Distinguish Between Old Testament Theology and Rabbinic Theology and Tradition<\/p>\n
Much of what is done in Judaism today is not based upon the theology and practices as laid out in the Old Testament. Rather it is based upon rabbinic theology and tradition. Obviously, modern Judaism, without a temple and tribal lineages, is a pale imitation of the system laid out by God in the early books of the Old Testament. But even with the temple and the tribal lineages in tact, Jesus Himself had a terrible time fighting against the encroaching traditions and human interpretations which the Jewish leaders had piled upon their people (e.g. Matt. 15:1\u201320). Various celebrations and calendar events are certainly important to the modern Jew, but events like Hannakah find their roots in tradition and not in Old Testament theology.<\/p>\n
Issue: Why would the proponents of this movement, given our definition of a Jew which is primarily a religious and spiritual definition, put such an emphasis on their Messianic Judaism, which is primarily a cultural and rabbinic tradition? Why risk doing great damage to the Body of Christ and great harm to the integrity of the Scriptures, when what is at stake are essentially cultural and traditional practices, many of which were already corrupted by the time of Christ? In Matthew 23:24, Jesus said, \u201cYou blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.\u201d Isn\u2019t the movement just straining out gnats and swallowing camels?<\/p>\n
3. Failure to Properly Interpret 1 Corinthians 9:19\u201323<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most commonly used passage in the New Testament as a prooftext for the validity of a messianic synagogue movement is the first part of Paul\u2019s great missionary defense for using any and every method appropriate in winning to Christ the various target audiences in his ministry. In 1 Corinthians 9:20 Paul says:<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those that are under the Law;\u201d<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s statement in this passage has to do with evangelism. Theologically, one cannot reduce all of ecclesiology to evangelism. The Church does many other things besides evangelizing one particular ethnic group. 1 Corinthians 9 cannot be used as a prooftext for planting Hebrew-Christian congregations so that converts can cultivate a Jewish lifestyle. The cultural conditioning of a local church is not something it promotes for itself, but rather it receives it in a passive way as a result of the particular make-up of their congregation of people.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement base their whole system of ecclesiology on a passage that is merely evangelistic and strategic? How can they avoid those passages and books of the New Testament that clearly present a more balanced view of ecclesiology (e.g. Gal. 5\u20136, the Book of Ephesians)? Furthermore, is a church to have only one cultural orientation? And is the purpose of a church to promote such cultural orientation?<\/p>\n
4. Failure to Distinguish Between the Great Principles of Law and Grace<\/p>\n
The old covenant did not merely merge into the new covenant. Paul is emphatic that the old system passed away and that any attempt to seek God through that system is heresy. In Galatians 5:2\u20134, 6 Paul says:<\/p>\n
\u201cBehold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace \u2026 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.<\/p>\n
Life for the Hebrew Christian is not merely taking the best things from Judaism and blending them with the least offensive or most comfortable aspects of Christianity. The great principles of law and grace cannot be harmonized. And to encourage a not-yet converted Hebrew or a brand new Hebrew Christian to begin looking back to the outer trappings of a system of law could run the risk of damning their souls. From Paul\u2019s perspective, such individuals may not be converted but \u201chave fallen from grace.\u201d From Jesus\u2019 perspective, such an approach could be just one more way in which Satan, like a bird, swoops down and snatches the seed, the Word, from the soil before it has a chance to germinate (Mark 4:15). Even though proponents of a messianic synagogue movement may not intend to foist the trappings of law upon the uninitiated, they certainly run that great risk of having their message misunderstood.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage interested \u201clookers-on\u201d and recently converted Hebrew Christians to begin syncretistically applying to themselves concepts and practices that at the same time embrace elements of the old covenant as well as the new? Are they not mixing law and grace? Or could not some of the very immature ones perceive it as such? How can such a fine line be followed? What hermeneutical system do the proponents of this movement set down for their messianic synagogues? What is to stop them from sacrificing goats if they want to?<\/p>\n
5. Failure to Appreciate the Implications of the Atonement<\/p>\n
Although it is almost trite to include in such a discussion the fact that Christ \u201cbroke down the barrier of the dividing wall\u201d (Eph. 2:14b) that had in the past separated the Jews from the Gentiles, it still is important to reflect briefly upon how very costly it was for God to tear down that barrier, for if cost His Son His life. The Gentiles were \u201cbrought near by the blood of Christ\u201d (Eph. 2:13b), a euphemism for his death on the cross. Several times in Eph. 2:14 and 15 the text emphasizes \u201cHe Himself\u201d and \u201cHis flesh\u201d (vs. 15) and \u201cin one body\u201d (vs. 17a), \u201cestablishing peace\u201d (vs. 14a), \u201cHe came and preached peace\u201d (vs. 17a), \u201cestablishing peace\u201d (vs. 15c). The culmination of His reconciling peace was the creation of \u201cone new man\u201d (vs. 15b). This one new man, the Church, is described in very lofty, positional truths throughout the remainder of the chapter (Eph. 2:19\u201322). The point is this: one of the major purposes for Christ\u2019s death on the cross was to bring together Jew and Gentile into a new organism that had never existed before and to forever abolish \u201cthe enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances\u201d (vs. 15). The old covenant is forever abolished, and both Jews and Gentiles now find their meeting and meaning in Christ and Him alone.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage Hebrew Christians to move back toward their Judiastic roots and away from Gentile Christians when Christ died to accomplish exactly the opposite? If His death really did result in one new man, shouldn\u2019t Jews as well as Gentiles revel in our new identity in Christ, rather than trying to re-establish our independent identities? If the enmity (vs. 15a, 16b) was really tied to the Old Testament ordinances (vs. 15) but has now been destroyed \u201cthrough the cross\u201d (vs. 16), aren\u2019t the proponents of this movement really making light of (at best) or mocking (at worst) the death of Christ and seeking to divide what He died to unite? Are \u201ccultural\u201d considerations more important than a Scripturally revealed purpose for Christ\u2019s death on the cross?<\/p>\n
6. Failure to Understand Progressive Doctrinal Revelation<\/p>\n
The teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul make it clear that what began at Pentecost at the beginning of the new age of the Spirit was fundamentally different than what had preceded it. Jesus said in Mark 2:22,<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins.\u201d<\/p>\n
The context of this passage is plain. Jesus is claiming that things will be different in the New Testament age, and that we cannot regress to Old Testament forms. If we try to put the new work of the Spirit into the forms, structures, practices, even culture of the old economy, it will do irreparable harm to both the wine and the wineskins (the new life of the Spirit, the one new man, of this age, along with the new forms that the Church age brings). Galatians 3:24a states that \u201cthe Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ,\u201d but that once we come to Christ \u201cwe are no longer under a tutor\u201d (Gal. 3:25b). A major focus of the Old Testament Law was to bring us to Christ just as a tutor would disciple a young student over the years. But once we have been brought into saving faith in Christ, the Law as a tutor is no longer needed, nor dare we go back to it.<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement keep urging Hebrew Christians to re-discover their Jewish roots and to keep the forms and structures that were meaningful to them in Judaism when the New Testament seems to be saying exactly the opposite? If Jesus claims that such attempted efforts will be disastrous, why disobey Jesus or why take such a risk?<\/p>\n
7. Failure to Understand the Unique Privileges, Responsibilities and Limitations Put on the Jews By God<\/p>\n
As the ancient chosen people of God, the Jews stood in a favored position over all the other peoples on earth. They were put in that position through no merit of their own (Deut. 7:6\u20138) but merely by the love and faithfulness of God (vs. 8). They enjoyed special honor and blessing. God made and kept His covenants with His chosen people. They were given His unique protection, in that they were called \u201cthe apple of His eye\u201d (Deut. 32:10). Anyone that poked his finger in the pupil of God\u2019s eye got God angry! The Jews were entrusted with the Old Testament Scriptures. They were blessed with the ministry of the prophets. They even were the people through whom God would provide a Messiah for the world. Even in unbelief the Jews enjoyed unique privileges, as Paul said that the gospel was to go \u201cto the Jew first and also to the Greek\u201d (Rom. 1:16).
\nBut because of their unique privileges, the Jews also had unique responsibilities. For example, they were to serve as a Kingdom of priests to all the other nations of the world (Exodus 19:6a). They were expected to obey the Old Testament Scriptures and the prophets and to uphold their part of the covenant. They were to wait for and follow the Messiah. Even at the very end of this age during the Tribulation, Jewish evangelists numbering 144,000 will cover the globe with the good news of the gospel and the impending judgment of God (Revelation 7:1\u20138). Jesus spoke of the responsibilities of the Jews in this manner: \u201cAnd from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more\u201d (Luke 12:48b).
\nBecause of their unique privileges and responsibilities, the Jews also shoulder unique limitations that no other people on earth are asked to bear. There are certain unique sacrifices that fall to Hebrew Christians. For one thing, Jews are unable to start ethnic local churches like all the other ethnic peoples of the world are free to do. The Jews do not have that right or freedom. There is a profound difference between a Jewish Messianic Synagogue or a Hebrew Christian congregation and any other kind of ethnic church, be it an all-Korean church or an all-Italian church or an all-Mexican church. In Judaism culture and theology were inextricably bound together and could not be separated. The Jews are the only ethnic group of which that can be stated, because all of the Gentile ethnic groups that are Christian have their religious identity and theology rooted in Jewish life, history, and culture. There is no danger of any other ethnic people drifting back into Judaism (i.e. Old Testament forms and rabbinical traditions) and its deadening legalism except the Jews themselves. Jewish Christians must be the example of demonstrating to the world that the Lord Jesus Christ has fulfilled the \u201ctypes and shadows\u201d of the Old Testament. Thus, it is even more incumbent on Jewish Christians not to drift back into rabbinical traditions or Mosaic legalism. Hebrew Christians can\u2019t move backward toward Judaism again, since legalism originated there and since all the Christians of the world have their religious roots in God\u2019s ancient people the Jews. Because of their divinely unique position and because they are always the focus of attention in the world, Jews who have come to their Messiah must be the most scrupulously New Testament in all their practices, even if other Gentile groups are not as precise and faithful to the Scriptures, because all the rest of the world is watching their example and pattern. They dare not confuse the rest of the world. It is not unfair for God to expect this of them or to place such high standards and limitations on them, since historically God has placed great privileges and accompanying responsibilities on the Jews.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement in all conscience start such synagogues or other Hebrew Christian congregations? Don\u2019t they know all the Gentile Christians of the world are watching them? Can\u2019t they see that there is an inherent difference between a Jewish ethnic church and any other kind of Gentile ethnic church? Don\u2019t they see that such irresponsible actions on their part have the potential of corrupting the doctrine and confusing the practices of any other ethnic church around the world? Jews may complain that they are being branded by others as ethnocentric, but unfortunately it comes with the territory.<\/p>\n
8. The Misunderstanding of Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s Day<\/p>\n
To the Jew the Old Testament taught him: \u201cSo you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them\u201d (Leviticus 18:5). The Jew was taught that if he was obedient he would get his reward at the end. In commenting on the 5th Commandment in Exodus 20:12, the Apostle Paul says that honoring one\u2019s father and mother was the first commandment with a promise (Ephesians 6:2), a promise of more days at the end of one\u2019s life. This was also how the Jew viewed the Sabbath. He lived six days in obedience to God and he was rewarded on the seventh day with a day of rest. However, for the Christian God has already rewarded him. \u201cThere is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus\u201d (Romans 8:1). Thus, we have the Lord\u2019s Day at the beginning of the week and live out our reward the rest of the week. The injunctions to observe the Sabbath is the only one of the Ten Commandments that does not have a counterpart somewhere in the Mew Testament. And the insistence of all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, in the Early Church to observe the Lord\u2019s Day (Sunday) rather than the Sabbath (Saturday) is proof positive that all Christians perceived the day changed as more than just a matter of preference, convenience, or sentimentality (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10).<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of the Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage their Hebrew Christian constituents to reassert the Sabbath over against the Lord\u2019s Day? What is their New Testament justification for such an action? Don\u2019t they understand we have already been rewarded in Christ?<\/p>\n
9. The Misunderstanding of Our Freedom in Christ<\/p>\n
Peter had to learn a lesson while in a trance on the housetop in Joppa when a voice said three times \u201cWhat God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy\u201d (Acts 10:15). Paul concluded that he was \u201cconvinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself\u201d (Romans 14:14a) and that \u201ceverything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude\u201d (1 Timothy 4:4). Even Jesus said that it was \u201cNot what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man\u201d (Matt. 15:11). The whole thrust of Romans 14, in which Paul gives guidelines for stronger and weaker brothers in Christ relating together, can be summarized by one verse in Galatians 5:13: \u201cFor you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.\u201d
\nThe New Testament is clear that in the age of the Church the dietary laws, special feast days, and other legal observances are subsumed under our freedom in Christ. Paul stressed in Romans 14 that under the new covenant Christians can have the freedom to observe every day alike, rather than feeling the compulsion to fix certain days as unique, above the others. Since Christ has come, that to which all the shadows of the Old Testament were pointing (Colossians 2:17), Paul encouraged the Colossians to \u201clet no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day\u201d (Col. 2:16).
\nIndividual Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, have the freedom in Christ to enjoy all foods and days. They have the freedom to celebrate any number of Jewish events, (e.g., a bar mitzvah or Hannakah) as simply a part of the Jewish calendar, but not with any \u201credeeming\u201d religious significance. Where the proponents of Hebrew Christian congregations err is in the incorporation of the \u201ctypes and shadows\u201d for the \u201cSubstance\u201d of their worship. They err when they restrict their religious activities to the Sabbath, eat only kosher foods, and observe Yom Kippur and Passover, two holidays that have clearly passed away with the termination of the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system of the old covenant (Heb. 7:12, 8:13).<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement at times run the risk of encouraging their people to voluntarily place themselves back under the trappings of Judaism in regard to food, drink, holidays, or Sabbaths? Does this not violate the lessons learned from Jesus, Peter, and Paul? Doesn\u2019t the encouragement to celebrate the Day of Atonement and Passover confuse many clear passages in Hebrews about the passing of the old covenant and the institution of the new? Aren\u2019t we called to freedom, a freedom to serve one another? \u201cIf therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed\u201d (John 8:36).<\/p>\n
10. Misunderstanding of the Unique But Temporal Role of the Jerusalem Church in Early Christian History<\/p>\n
The one church in the New Testament that was clearly a Jewish church was the one in Jerusalem. But it was a Hebrew Christian congregation not by design but due to the city\u2019s overwhelmingly Jewish population. As \u201ca great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem\u201d (Acts 8:16), these Hebrew Christians \u201cwere all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria\u201d (Acts 8:1c). Other Jewish congregations no doubt were established in Judea, although Luke the physician only records the beginnings of the church among the half-breed Samaritans (Acts 8:4\u20138). From that point on the churches begin to move away from their decidedly Jewish flavor and become more and more predominantly Gentile in nature (e.g. Acts 11:19\u201321). But again, this occurred not by design but was due to the surrounding nations overwhelmingly Gentile population. As the Church expanded outward from Jerusalem it became a Gentile Church by the sheer demographic characteristics of the Roman Empire. But God never intended the Church to remain Jewish but designed that it flourish \u201cboth in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth\u201d (Acts 1:8b).
\nIt was not God\u2019s intent that all the churches springing up around the Roman Empire be viewed identically by Him or by each other. The churches enjoyed diversity in the midst of the true spiritual unity. Roland Allen, in his classic work Missionary Methods: St. Paul\u2019s Or Ours?, convincingly demonstrates Paul\u2019s mentality in approaching the local churches with whom he worked in the Early Church. Paul did not view Jerusalem as the headquarters of a new \u201cclub\u201d and all the Jerusalem Christians as being card-carrying \u201cfull\u201d members, with all the other subsequent churches as new chapters of the club and all other Christians as \u201cassociate\u201d members. Allen states on page 176:<\/p>\n
\u201cUnity might be maintained two ways. The church in Jerusalem might be regarded as the original Church, the body of Christ established and organized by His Apostles. The converts in the Four Provinces might be regarded as joining that Church \u2026 On the other hand, new churches established in the provinces might be regarded equally with the first as parts of a still incomplete whole which must grow up by degrees into its completeness.\u201d<\/p>\n
Allen opts for the latter position, and the New Testament appears to substantiate that position. Furthermore, in Acts 15 at the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council, the church at Jerusalem asked the Gentile believers of Syria and Cilicia, the first churches planted among those who were former pagan Gentiles that were to have any tangible relationship with the believers in Jerusalem, that they refrain from 4 practices that would be offensive to the Hebrew Christians (Acts 15:20, 28\u201329). Such a request was taken in the right spirit by the church of Antioch, for after they read the letter \u201cthey rejoiced because of its encouragement\u201d (Acts 15:31b). Roland Allen goes on to say on page 177 and 179, speaking of the Jerusalem church, that:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe first had no right, simply on the ground that it was the first, to impose its laws and its customs upon the last. In a word, unity did not consist in outward conformity to the practices of the earliest member, but in incorporation into the body \u2026 it was the second of these two policies which Paul adopted. He refused to transplant the law and the customs of the church in Judea into the Four Provinces \u2026 The decrees of the Jerusalem Council were addressed to the churches of Syria and Cilicia. St. Paul carried them as far as Galatia, but he carried them no further. He did not enforce them in Macedonia or Achaia. Precedents are not of universal application. The conditions in Corinth or in Thessalonica were not the same as in Antioch in Syria, or even in Galatia.\u201d<\/p>\n
The point of all this is obvious. The Jerusalem Church had a unique but temporal role in the historical events of the Early Church. God used the Jewish church in Jerusalem as a beach-head from which He could launch His forces to the far corners of the Roman Empire and beyond. God did not expect the scruples of the Jerusalem Church to be universally applicable, or He would have led Paul to urge all his Gentile readers to exercise the same cultural restraints (abstaining from things offered to idols or from things strangled or from blood) as agreed upon in that original pact between the Jerusalem Church and the Antioch Church. But Paul did not. Although the Church is a unique spiritual organism, with its Head, Christ, standing above any culture, the Early Church could not help but become more Gentile in some of its cultural expressions since the vast majority of people on earth were Gentile and not Jewish.
\nThe same is still true today. The majority of Americans (and American Christians) are Gentiles. There is no country outside of Israel that has an overwhelmingly Jewish population. We can understand some of the limitations by which believers in Israel today must adapt their religious life (e.g., having to worship on Saturdays because the state government has made Sunday a normal workday). We can understand there existing a very ethnically Jewish church in Haifa, Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem, since the preponderance of people there are Jewish anyway. But the USA is not Israel, and the majority of Jews in the USA are not living isolated lives in some ethnic ghetto and have been assimilated into the mainstream of middle-class America.<\/p>\n
Issue: How can the leaders of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement encourage the establishment of such synagogues and Hebrew Christian congregations when God\u2019s purpose in the Early Church was to move the Hebrew Christians toward the surrounding Gentile nations and not introspectively to pull everything all back in to itself? Since we are not living in Israel today, what is their rationale for establishing Hebrew Christian congregations in a Gentile nation? Are there not evangelical churches within two, five, or ten miles of any new Hebrew Christian convert in the USA (we have more than 330,000 churches of all kinds)? And even if there isn\u2019t such a church nearby, why start a Messianic Synagogue or a Hebrew Christian congregation? Why not just start a Bible-believing local church? Why try to make a new church Jewish instead of just Christian? What\u2019s wrong with all of us, both Jews and Gentiles, just being Christians?<\/p>\n
11. The Danger of Deception in Attempting to Lure Jews to Christianity<\/p>\n
As pointed out in a Christianity Today editorial of April 24, 1981: \u201cA small minority of Jewish Christians disguise their Christianity to attract unsuspecting Jews to accept Christianity. This is deceitful, contrary to the New Testament teaching, and unworthy of evangelical Christians.\u201d It has also been stated many times by unbelievers that they object to Messianic Jews disguising their true intent, claiming to be simply holding a Jewish party, when they are really trying to attract Jews to Christ. Instead of attracting knowledgeable Jews, such activities drive them further away and bring reproach on the Christian message. Is there something deficient in the gospel that it needs a mixture of Judaism to make it palatable to the Jewish taste? It is right and proper to show how the Christian faith is grounded in Old Testament theology and ritual, but when that system has been gloriously fulfilled by God Himself, what need is there to sustain it as though it were yet to be fulfilled?
\nWhy was Paul persecuted in the Book of Acts (e.g., Acts 13:50, 17:5\u20136, 18:12, 21:27ff)? Because he was trying to maintain Judaism? Or because he was preaching to the Jews a new faith entirely? Most of Paul\u2019s suffering came at the hands of unbelieving Jews. He spoke of his Jewish countrymen \u201cwho both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out\u201d (1 Thess. 2:15a). If Paul was still preaching a contextually relevant Judaism for those Jews who were more comfortable with their Judaistic roots, why would he say: \u201cBut I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?\u201d (Gal. 5:11a). The New Testament, written by Jews (except Luke the physician), is the greatest polemic to the Jewish people to return to their biblical roots and the \u2018flower\u2019 of those roots, Messiah Jesus. Thus the New Testament has become the greatest rebuke to the rabbinical Judaism, which stands in contrast to biblical truth. In fact, some of the strongest arguments against rabbinical Judaism were the converted Jewish apostles, disciples, and church leaders. Jesus Himself was clearly a rebuke to most of the Jewish religious leaders of His day. So was Peter. So was Paul.<\/p>\n
Issue: Why do the proponents of this movement advocate such a low-key, warm, comfortable approach to sharing Christ with unbelieving fellow Jews when that was exactly the opposite approach Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the New Testament writers took? Why did the unbelieving Jews persecute Paul and the Early Church? Are not some of the movement\u2019s methods unethical at best and deceptive at worst? It appears that there is no way of getting around the offense of the cross when dealing with unbelieving Jews. How can a clear presentation of the gospel be given without either running the risk of offending an unbelieving Jew or else emasculating the message of the cross?<\/p>\n
12. The Danger of Compromising Accommodation to Keep Jews Within Christianity<\/p>\n
Most advocates of the movement say they are doing what they are doing in order to make an unbelieving Jew feel more comfortable in coming to Christ and later more \u201cat home\u201d in his quasi-Christian environment so that he will want to stay a Hebrew Christian. There may be an element of self-deception in all this. How does a 20th century Jew really know that he has rediscovered his Judaistic roots? How does he know he is celebrating the Old Testament festivals as they were observed through the centuries in conformity with the Scriptures? Who knows exactly how the Passover was celebrated in Old Testament times? With horseradish? With salt water and parsley? With a cup of Elijah? With Manischewitz wine? With modern-type matzoth? Where is the slain lamb? Where is the blood sprinkled on the doorposts? In observing the Sabbath, where are the Sabbath offerings? For the Day of Atonement, where are the sacrifices of the goats? Where is the high priest? And what about the other festivals? Do they build and live in booths for the Feast of Tabernacles? Unfortunately, James 2:10 states that the Law of Moses is not susceptible to one\u2019s picking and choosing.
\nIn considering how unbelieving Jews come to their Messiah and place their trust in Him, it seems at least from our perspective that many such Jews are won to Christ by their believing Gentle friends, neighbors, and work associates. Our experience has been that some said Hebrew Christian missionaries have a real disadvantage when it comes to working with unbelieving Jews, who view them as traitors of their own people or \u201cjust in it for the money.\u201d In these instances Gentile Christians are able to give a more natural and complete picture of Christianity without insulting or offending them. And yet if potential Hebrew Christians have no Gentiles around them, as would probably be the case in a Messianic Synagogue, they may lose much in their perception of the gospel because only Hebrew Christians have shared with them. Although proponents of the movement say such an approach makes an unbelieving Jew more comfortable in coming to Christ, at our church, Grace Community Church, we have seen hundreds of Jews come to love and follow their Messiah. It might be that most non-Christian Jews that come to Christ are not won by other Jews but through Gentiles. If that is in any way true, then what is the purpose of Messianic Synagogues? Are they not just a convenient way of helping converted Jews keep their Judaistic roots, or, even worse to help them rediscover their cultural heritage that they weren\u2019t even practicing in the first place?<\/p>\n
Issue: Do the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue Movement think that all potential Christian Jews can come to Christ more easily through other Jews rather than through loving, sensitive Gentiles? History would say that is not always the case. Aren\u2019t they in many respects trying to resurrect some forms of Jewishness that in no way approximate Old Testament Judaism? Is there not a real danger of compromise in their anxiousness to accommodate their message to the comfortableness of their target audience? Isn\u2019t the bottom line in all that proponents of this movement are doing is simply the desire to help converted Jews keep their Judaistic roots? Aren\u2019t they Just feeding the ethnic pride and ethnocentism that is so much a part of all of us?
\nIn conclusion, we would like to restate our desire that we understand what others are thinking, why some would hold positions the Bible would appear not to sanction, and how they would answer the above 12 points from a Scriptural perspective. There appear to be grave deficiencies, mistakes, and errors in the American Messianic Synagogue Movement. We again openly invite those of varying viewpoints within this movement to respond to these concerns. We anticipate fruitful, future discussions.<\/p>\n
B. RESPONSE
\nArnold G. Fruchtenbaum
\nMay 10, 1985
\n(Revised)<\/p>\n
To the Elders of Grace Community Church:<\/p>\n
I recently received the paper you produced entitled, \u201cThe American Messianic Synagogue Movement: Deficiencies, Mistakes, and Errors in Light of the Scriptures.\u201d The purpose of this letter is to respond to a number of points raised by your paper. While many of your criticisms are valid, for the most part they apply to a few extreme elements who attempt to set up Messianic synagogues. I believe your reaction to their many unbiblical practices has led to an overreaction against any type of Jewish congregation whatsoever, and that overreaction has caused your own conclusions to contain \u201cdeficiencies, mistakes, and errors in light of the Scriptures.\u201d
\nBefore moving on to specific responses, let me spell out my own credentials in the matter. I am a Jewish believer in the Messiahship of Jesus, and I was led to the Lord through the American Board of Missions to the Jews. I did my undergraduate work in both Hebrew and Greek, and I did my seminary training at and received my degree from Dallas Theological Seminary. I have also done graduate studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I am presently a Ph.D. candidate at the New York University. I also have four published works: Jesus Was a Jew, Hebrew Christianity: Its Theology, History and Philosophy, The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, and Biblical Lovemaking: A Study of the Song of Solomon. I am presently the director of Ariel Ministries, which is a Jewish missionary society established on two principles of both evangelism and discipleship. We have five American branches (Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Bergen County, New Jersey and Baltimore) and one in Israel. The majority of our missionary staff are graduates either of Dallas Theological Seminary or Talbot Theological Seminary. The point is, those of us involved in Ariel Ministries are not lacking in theological training and\/or expertise.
\nI will comment on your paper point-by-point in the same order as found in your own paper.<\/p>\n
1. The Lack of Definition of the Title \u201cJew\u201d<\/p>\n
I do not believe that you have truly grasped the biblical definition of a Jew. Jewishness is rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, the promise that God was going to form a new nation through the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The biblical definition of a Jew, therefore, is any descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all such descendants are Jews. It does not matter what the individual Jew may believe or disbelieve; he will always remain a Jew. There have always been two types of Jews: believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. The unbelieving Jews were always part of the nation that descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and they have not ceased to be Jews because of their unbelief. But within Israel as a whole, there was always a believing element, sometimes designated as \u201cthe Remnant of Israel,\u201d or \u201cthe Israel of God.\u201d Those Jews who believed were \u201cJews\u201d to the fullest extent, because the root meaning of the word is \u201cpraise,\u201d and only these Jewish believers of any era were the true praisers of God. The passage you quoted in Romans 2:28\u201329 actually emphasizes this fact. Your claim that in the New Testament the term \u201cJew\u201d is primarily a spiritual designation is not really true to the fact, if you will simply count up the times the word is used in a concordance. You will find the majority of times that the term is used in the New Testament, it is speaking of descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in general, and not necessarily of believing Jews. Even Paul used the term \u201cJew\u201d a good number of times of those who were not believers in Christ. What Paul does with the term \u201cJew\u201d is similar to what some of the prophets did with the term \u201cIsrael.\u201d The prophets never denied that all the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were part of the people of Israel, but emphasized that the true Israel, that is, the true \u201cprince with God,\u201d is that part of Israel that were believers in God\u2019s revelation. Yet those same prophets themselves often used the designation \u201cIsrael\u201d of the non-believing portion of the nation. Paul does the same thing with the term \u201cJew.\u201d He often uses that term in reference to the non-believing portion of the nation, but still he points out that the term \u201cJew\u201d is especially relevant to those who are truly believers.
\nAs to your question, \u201cHow can the proponents of the American Messianic Synagogue movement give a fundamentally different meaning to the word \u2018Jew\u2019 than Paul does in Romans 2:28 and 29?\u201d, the answer is that this is not the only passage where Paul used the term, and therefore it should not be limited to that passage alone. I am not a defender of the \u201cAmerican Messianic Synagogue movement,\u201d but on this point I think that Grace Community Church has misunderstood the Scriptures. It is not true that \u201cthe only true Jews are those who are Jews spiritually,\u201d otherwise Paul would not have used that term for unbelievers. Nor does Paul even use the term \u201ctrue\u201d in that Romans passage. It might be better to see it in context as meaning that the Jewish believer is the truly completed Jew, for all Jews are true Jews if they are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
\nAlso in this segment you quoted Galatians 3:28: there can he neither Jew nor Greek, \u2026 for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Based upon that quotation, you deduce that \u201cthe modern ethnic uniqueness of the Jew is of no account.\u201d In essence, you are using that passage to try to infer that there are no longer any real distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, and all that counts is the spiritualness; but does that verse in context really say that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles are erased? In the context, the passage is dealing with justification by faith. There is no question that both Jews and Gentiles are justified the same way and that there are not two ways of justification, one for Jews and one for Gentiles: but this is all you can truly conclude from that verse. Furthermore, your citation of that verse seems to be prejudicial, because you fail to quote the verse in its entirety. It also mentions in the same verse that there is neither slave nor free, and there is neither male nor female. Do the elders of Grace Community Church teach that all distinctions between man and woman have been erased? If so, Grace Community Church cannot oppose the ordination of women and women pastors and preachers from the pulpit of Grace Community Church. Nor can Grace Community Church teach that the wife should be in subjection to the husband, since all such distinctions no longer exist in Christ. That, too, would be an invalid deduction of the meaning of that verse. The point is the same: salvation is the same for both male and female, and God did not provide two different ways of justification, one for man and one for woman. The elders of Grace Community Church should be aware that whichever way they choose to exegete and apply Galatians 3:28 on the issue of Jews and Gentiles must also be used concerning the issue of males and females in order to be consistent.
\nFor further elaboration on these points, I am enclosing a copy of my book: Hebrew Christianity. The first two chapters will elaborate on this theme. The first is, \u201cJewishness\u2014A Matter of Definitions.\u201d The second chapter is, \u201cThe Biblical Basis for the Hebrew Christian Distinctive.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. Failure to Distinguish Between Old Testament Theology and Rabbinic Theology and Tradition<\/p>\n
Your statement that much of what happens in Judaism is based upon rabbinic theology and tradition and not upon Old Testament theology is correct. That by itself does not make it right or wrong. Those things which are definitely contrary to the Scriptures, either Old or New Testament, must be rejected out of hand. A great number of things are simply neutral and, therefore, there should be freedom of choice in the matter. If some Jewish believers wish to observe some of the traditions which are neutral, they should be allowed to do so. Grace Community Church practices a number of things purely on the basis of tradition, but since they are not biblically wrong, Grace Community Church is welcome to practice them. Your statement that Jesus often rejected rabbinic traditions is true, but He rejected those that violated Scripture. There were other Jewish traditions that did not violate Scripture which He practiced, such as the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup at His last Passover, neither of which is found in Old Testament law. Your statement that Channukah finds its roots in tradition, not in Old Testament theology, is partially true, though not totally. The Feast of Channukah arose as a result of the events during the Maccabean period. Nevertheless, there is validity to the observance of the deliverance of Jerusalem from the hands of the Syrians, in that the accomplishments of the Maccabees were predicted in the Old Testament by the prophet Daniel. Furthermore, although Channukah was not a feast that originated with the Old Testament, Jesus did not have any trouble observing it, as we see him doing in John 10:22. This feast is one of those neutral elements where there should be freedom of choice. I suspect Grace Community Church observes in some way Christmas Day and Easter Sunday, but these practices are based purely upon Gentile tradition and are not rooted even in New Testament theology. Furthermore, many American Fundamentalist churches observe things such as July 4th, Mother\u2019s Day Sunday, Father\u2019s Day Sunday, among other elements (Palm Sunday). Are they sinning in doing so because they are based upon tradition? As long as these things are purely neutral and not anti-biblical, certainly the churches have the freedom to do such things. If you do not deny the American Christian the freedom to observe the American Independence Day on July 4th, there is no reason to deny the Jewish believer the right to observe Passover, which commemorates Jewish national deliverance from the Egyptians. Furthermore, that same feast, in many unique ways, emphasizes the Messiahship of Jesus, and these practices should no more be relegated to mere \u201cshadows\u201d than when Grace Community Church practices the communion service that that should be relegated as mere \u201cshadows.\u201d Grace Community Church should not deny Jewish believers the right to practice neutral traditions unless they make the same denial to all other groups, including practices found within the Grace Community Church that are also based purely on traditions. (E.g., Does the Grace Community Church forbid its members to have a Christmas tree? At least Passover has much more biblical validity than Christmas trees.)<\/p>\n
3. Failure to Properly Interpret 1 Corinthians 9:19\u201323<\/p>\n
Your claim that the establishment of Messianic Hebrew Christian congregations is based upon this passage alone is patently untrue, and makes me wonder just how much investigation the elders really did on this issue. It seems that you received some input from one or two persons who are opponents and allowed them to state their case in its entirety, and that you failed to bring in people who might have provided a different picture of the situation. Your statement that the whole system of Ecclesiology is based on this one passage for Jewish congregations is simply not true. Ariel Ministries does not insist that its branches establish congregations, but of the five American branches, two have chosen to do so (Los Angeles and San Diego). When we do choose to go this route, we do not base it on 1 Corinthians 9, which we agree has to do with the principle of evangelism and not Ecclesiology. As to your question, \u201cIs the purpose of the church to promote such cultural orientation?\u201d, the answer is no, it is not the purpose of the Church to promote any cultural orientation; but neither has the Church any mandate to forbid it if it does not violate Scripture. Furthermore, no set style of worship is presented in the New Testament. One may travel anywhere in the world and find members of local churches performing particular practices which, for the most part, are reflections of their own cultural orientation. This includes the type of worship found at Grace Community Church, where it is not likely that the outline in the Sunday morning church bulletin is taken from an order of service presented in Scripture.
\nThe enclosed book also contains chapters entitled, \u201cHebrew Christianity and Judaism,\u201d and \u201cHebrew Christianity and the Local Church,\u201d which further elaborate on these points.<\/p>\n
4. Failure to Distinguish Between the Great Principles of Law and Grace<\/p>\n
It is certainly true that many members of the \u201cAmerican Messianic Synagogue movement\u201d have failed to make such a distinction. Whether they realize it or not, or admit it or not, many of their principles are based upon Covenant Theology and often on no theology. Ariel Ministries is a dispensational missionary society and we take the distinction between law and grace quite seriously. We strongly teach that the Jewish believer is free from the law and, therefore, has no obligation to keep any of the 613 commandments of the law. Freedom from the law actually means two things: first, the freedom from the obligation to observe any of the 613 commandments; and, secondly, the freedom to observe any of these 613 commandments that one chooses to observe on the basis of his freedom in Christ, always recognizing that what he chooses to keep has nothing to do with his justification or sanctification. Even Paul and others, after their own acceptance of Jesus, did not feel it inconsistent when they chose to continue observing various aspects of the Mosaic Law. If the Jewish Apostles had the freedom of choice, why would Grace Community Church deny that same freedom of choice to twentieth-century Jewish believers?
\nStatements in this section, such as \u201cto encourage a not yet converted Hebrew or a brand new Hebrew Christian to begin looking back to the outer trappings of a system of law could run the risk of damning their souls,\u201d seem to be inconsistent with the doctrine of eternal security, to which Grace Community Church adheres. To say that the practice of Jewish customs and traditions and Jewish-style worship services by Jewish believers could result in \u201cSatan, like a bird, (swooping) down and (snatching) the seed, the Word, from the soil before it has a chance to germinate,\u201d seems to show an ignorance of Jewish evangelism. Perhaps such a case has happened, but never in my experience or that of any Ariel staff member. In fact, the result has been quite the opposite. Furthermore, it is not the purpose of a Jewish-Christian congregation necessarily \u201cto foist the trappings of law upon the uninitiated,\u201d but rather to allow the Jewish believer to practice the worship of the Messiah in his own style of culture and music, just as we would allow the people of Grace Community Church to do it their way. As to your question, \u201cWhat is to stop them from sacrificing goats if they want to?\u201d, the answer is that this would violate Scripture. Again, freedom from the law means the freedom to practice those aspects of the law that in no way violate New Testament teaching. Freedom from the law means that the Jewish person is now free to eat pork. It does not mean that he has to eat pork. If he chooses to continue refraining from the eating of pork, he is not sinning as long as he theologically realizes that those who choose to eat pork are not sinning either.
\nIn the enclosed book there is also a chapter on, \u201cHebrew Christianity and the Law of Moses,\u201d which will answer the question even further.<\/p>\n
5. Failure to Appreciate the Implications of the Atonement<\/p>\n
I fail to see any strength in your argument in this section. We agree wholeheartedly that the death of Christ broke down the middle wall of partition, uniting Jews and Gentiles into one body. Therefore, a local body should allow for both types of members: Jews and Gentiles. Yet there have been Gentile-Christian churches that have refused to allow Jewish members, and it was because of that type of a situation that Leopold Cohn, the founder of the American Board of Missions to the Jews, established a messianic congregation in Brooklyn, though there were churches nearby. On the other hand, if a Jewish-Christian congregation will not allow Gentiles to join, that would be equally sinful; but for the most part, this is not the case. The two congregations founded by Ariel Ministries, while the majority of the membership is Jewish, contain a good number of Gentile members as well\u2014and not necessarily only Gentiles who happen to be married to Jews; nor is the eldership limited to Jews.
\nI would strongly recommend that the elders of Grace Community Church pay a visit to our congregation in Los Angeles, headed by Louis Lapides, and attend the Sunday morning worship service. I would then challenge you to find anything that is clearly unbiblical, either in the composition of the congregation, the content of it, or its style of worship or teaching. That would at least give the elders of Grace Community Church some first-hand experience so that they can make their comments on the basis of knowledge, because much of what you seem to say is based upon hearsay and\/or limited investigation.<\/p>\n
6. Failure to Understand Progressive Doctrinal Revelation<\/p>\n
As a dispensational organization, we agree with you in every way that a change took place at Pentecost, and that began a new age of the Spirit; but I am not so sure that your application of Mark 2:22 is really valid. You use that verse to say, \u201cJesus is claiming that things will be different in the New Testament age, in that we cannot regress to Old Testament forms.\u201d Actually, in that context, He is not dealing with the distinction between the Old Testament age and the New Testament age. In fact, while He was living, the law was still in effect, and every jot and tittle of the law still had to be kept. In the context of Mark 2:22, the issue is Pharisaic Judaism. The point He is making here is that He did not come to either pour His teachings into the mold of Pharisaism, nor did He come to patch up Pharisaic Judaism, but He is presenting something entirely new. The congregations of Ariel Ministries in no way support Pharisaic Judaism.
\nFurthermore, the purpose of these congregations is not to urge \u201cHebrew Christians to rediscover their Jewish roots,\u201d since such rediscovery really is necessary for Gentiles and not for Jews. The purpose is not to rediscover these Jewish roots, but to provide an environment in which such Jewish roots can be practiced and maintained, just as Grace Community Church provides the environment for their Gentile members to do the same. Your statement that \u201cJesus claims that such attempted efforts will be disastrous,\u201d is not a valid exegesis of Mark 2:22.<\/p>\n
7. Failure to Understand the Unique Privileges, Responsibilities and Limitations Put on the Jews by God<\/p>\n
For me, this section of the paper was the most troubling for two reasons. First, it shows a major gap in dispensational theology in dealing with Israel Present. Dispensationalism has a well-defined theology concerning Israel Past and Israel Future, but it has failed to consistently apply the dispensational principle of keeping Israel and the Church distinct at all times in developing a theology of Israel Present. (That is why I have chosen the following topic as my Ph.D. dissertation for NYU: Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology.) That is Dispensationalism\u2019s major failing (I speak as a Dispensationalist), and it is reflected in this section of your paper. The second reason this section is so troubling to me is that, to be blunt, it smacks of anti-Semitism. This is not merely a Jewish reaction to what was said, it is also the conclusion of some Gentile readers of the same paper. The elders of Grace Community Church will allow Korean churches, Chinese churches, and Italian churches, but the Jews are not allowed to have a church!
\nThe paper uses a lot of words to defend this thesis, but there is a decided lack of Scripture to prove it. The Scriptures quoted in this section deal with aspects of Israel Past and Israel Future; but when you try to deal with Israel Present and conclude that Jews cannot have their congregations while everyone else may, you do not quote a single passage of Scripture to prove your claim. This is poor theology indeed! The following are statements made in the paper which are very troubling, and for which no Scriptural evidence is provided: \u201cJews are unable to start ethnic local churches like all other ethnic peoples of the world are free to do. The Jews do not have that right or freedom.\u201d (Why not? Where is there a clear biblical statement that does not allow Jews to do such a thing, while every other nationality in the world may?); \u201cThere is no danger of any other ethnic people drifting back into Judaism.\u201d (True, but Italians could drift back into Catholicism, so should they not be forbidden to have Italian ethnic churches? Former Hindus are in danger of drifting back into Hinduism, and so should not the prohibition also be applied to the establishment of Indian ethnic churches? Arabs are in danger of drifting back into Islam; therefore, should not the Arabs be forbidden their ethnic church?) The danger of drifting back to a former religious system applies to more than just the Jews; yet Grace Community Church allows the others to have their ethnic churches, but the Jews may not. Frankly, that is anti-Semitism.
\nIt is very possible to point to an example of someone who was in a messianic Jewish congregation and who drifted back into Judaism, but that is not necessarily the fault of the Jewish congregation. In our experience, we have also seen Jewish-Christian members of Bible-teaching churches similar to Grace Community Church who have also drifted back into Judaism. Should we then blame it on the pattern adopted by that particular Bible church? The point is, the danger is there either way. The reason for the danger does not lie with the congregation as such, but rather with the individual, his relationship to God, and his response to the pull from his past life. On the other hand, 99 percent of the Jewish people who are won by various ways stay with the faith. Ariel\u2019s two congregations have gone a long way towards establishing these believers in their faith and grounding them in the Word of God. Be careful not to apply the failings of some messianic congregations to the whole movement, unless you are willing to be consistent and apply the failings of some Bible churches to the whole Bible church movement.
\nAnti-Semitism has a tendency to lead to overstatements, and your paper is guilty of this. You ask Jewish believers how they can start Jewish-Christian congregations, because, \u201cdon\u2019t they know all the Gentile Christians of the world are watching them?\u201d Are you really serious here? Are all the Christians of the entire world really watching us Jewish believers? I wish it were only true, because we could use the extra attention! In case your statement is true, and all the Gentile Christians of the entire world are watching us, then let them learn the lesson well: A Jew can believe in Jesus and not cease to be a Jew. Just as Jews had obligations in the past and will have obligations in the future, Jews have obligations even today. One of the ways we are helping to fulfill those obligations is through the maintenance of the Jewish identity, which God Himself promised would never be lost.
\nAnother overstatement is, \u201cDon\u2019t they see that such irresponsible actions on their part have the potential of corrupting the doctrine and confusing the practices of any other ethnic church around the world?\u201d This sentence totally confuses and floors me. You do not bother to explain just how this is a possibility. In what way does the establishment of Jewish congregations corrupt doctrine that is unique to Jewish congregations and is not true of any other? I doubt very much that other ethnic churches, such as the Koreans, the Italians, and the Chinese, which Grace Community Church seems to allow, will in any way be confused by Jews worshipping in their way. If the Koreans are free to be Koreans, Jews should be free to be Jews. The confusion is really only in the minds of those who put this paper together.<\/p>\n
8. The Misunderstanding of Sabbath and the Lord\u2019s Day<\/p>\n
We agree with you wholeheartedly that the Sabbath is no longer the obligatory day of rest or the obligatory day of worship, and that such obligation was done away with the law. However, the New Testament neither goes on to make the first day of the week (Sunday) a new type of Sabbath, nor does it command that one is to worship and rest upon that day. You keep referring to Sunday as being \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day,\u201d but the first day of the week is never called by that term. Even your citation of Revelation 1:10 is not exegetically correct. First of all, the term \u201cLord\u201d in this passage is not a noun, but an adjective in the Greek text. More literally, it would read, \u201ca lordy day.\u201d There is no evidence that the occurrence took place on the first day of the week, and it could just as easily have been on the seventh day of the week. Furthermore, the emphasis of Revelation 1:10 is not upon a specific day of the week, but rather upon the kind of day it was for John: it was on that day that the Spirit of God inspired him to be able to see the revelations of God and to record the Book of Revelation. The New Testament never uses the expression \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day\u201d for Sunday, and the first day of the week is never called \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day.\u201d In fact, the New Testament pattern is that no day of the week is to be placed above another, and every believer has an option to choose. Paul wrote that one man can esteem one day special, another man can esteem every day alike, and both are biblically correct and have the freedom in Christ to do so. There is no question that the Church is commanded to congregate together, but no specific day of the week was mandated for this. Every congregation has the absolute freedom to choose what day of the week they wish to meet. Grace Community Church has the freedom to choose Sunday, and the Ariel congregation in Los Angeles has the freedom to choose Sunday; but the Ariel congregation in San Diego chose Friday, and it is an equally valid choice since each one has the freedom in Christ to choose accordingly.
\nFurthermore, your citation of Acts 20:7 to prove a Sunday observance is not correct. The passage does say the first of the week, but you are ignoring that for Jews the first day of the week happened to be sundown Saturday until sundown Sunday and did not begin with the midnight hour between Saturday and Sunday. The Jewish believers did not meet Sunday morning as the Grace Community Church has chosen to do (and you have the freedom to do so); they met Saturday night. The meeting referred to in Acts 20:7 occurred on a Saturday night and not on a Sunday morning. A careful exegesis of verse seven will clearly bring out that point. The verse says, And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them \u2026 So far, the verse has stated that the church got together on the first day of the weak, which, for Paul, as well as for all Jews, began sundown Saturday. The very next day would have been the Gentile Sunday. He would have been traveling on Sunday morning rather than worshipping on Sunday morning. The proof of all this is in the final phrase of verse seven, \u2026 and prolonged his speech until midnight. This makes perfect sense if it is realized that the meeting of the church occurred Saturday night and not Sunday morning. If Grace Community Church wishes to believe that the meeting of Acts 20:7 occurred Sunday morning at 11:00 a.m., they would have to claim that Paul preached for 13 hours straight until midnight on Sunday! That would certainly make the whole passage totally nonsensical.
\nThe simple exegesis of Acts 20:7 is that the church at Troas met on the first day of the week, Saturday night after sundown, and Paul was planning to leave the city the next morning, or Sunday morning. Because the service started at night, and because of other elements involved in the worship, Paul began preaching and continued to preach past midnight. The fact that the church was meeting at night and not in the morning becomes rather evident in two ways: first, Paul preached until midnight, and secondly, in verse eight, it was necessary to light lamps in the upper room where they were gathered.
\nThose messianic congregations that insist on a Friday night or Saturday morning worship are wrong if they make it a requirement; but if they merely make it optional, they have the total freedom to do so. Those who absolutely require Sunday worship are equally wrong, because they have no biblical validity. If Grace Community Church wishes to use Acts 20:7 as the rule of thumb, then they will have to insist on a Saturday night worship, not a Sunday morning worship! The clear teaching of the New Testament is that, in this Dispensation of Grace, it is not obligatory that a particular day be set aside, and there is freedom in the Lord in the matter; therefore, let each individual congregation make its own choice. To claim, as the paper does, that the \u201cinsistence of all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, in the early church to observe the Lord\u2019s day (Sunday) rather than the Sabbath (Saturday) is proof positive that all Christians perceived the day change as more than just a matter of preference, convenience, or sentimentality,\u201d is, frankly, false from several perspectives. It is, first of all, historically false; the historical records of Jewish Christianity in the land for the first four centuries show that Jewish believers, as a rule, met together on Saturday night and not on Sunday. It is also theologically untrue, because Sunday is never referred to as \u201cthe Lord\u2019s day,\u201d and there is no so-called \u201cproof positive\u201d that the day of worship was changed.
\nConcerning your question, \u201cWhy do the proponents \u2026 encourage their Hebrew Christian constituents to reassert the Sabbath over against the Lord\u2019s day?\u201d, if they truly encourage people to reassert the Sabbath over against any other day, then they are wrong; but if they are merely giving Jewish believers the option of which day to choose, then they are right. Those Jewish congregations that insist that the Sabbath must be the day of worship are wrong, but those Gentile congregations that insist that Sunday must be the day of worship are equally wrong.
\nFrankly, it is very evident that the elders of Grace Community Church need to re-examine the whole issue, both historically and theologically. You would do well to read a recent book written by several biblical scholars entitled, From Sabbath to the Lord\u2019s Day, edited by D. A. Carson and published by Zondervan. None of these scholars are Jewish and, therefore, they have no special ax to grind; but they carefully and scholarly record both the history and theology of these two things. I think you could learn much from it.<\/p>\n
9. The Misunderstanding of Our Freedom in Christ<\/p>\n
I am not so sure who is misunderstanding the freedom one has in Christ. You are absolutely correct that the law is done away and that no Jewish believer has any obligation to keep dietary laws or special days. He is free in Christ from these things, but he is also free in Christ to observe such things that do not violate clear New Testament teaching. It seems that it is the elders of Grace Community Church who do not want to permit Jewish believers their freedom in Christ to do these things. It is almost as if the elders will not be satisfied until a Jewish believer, raised in Orthodox Judaism, publicly eats pork. Is it not enough that he states that he does not believe that eating pork is a sin, but chooses to refrain from it? Would the elders of Grace Community Church insist that he has to eat pork? Is it not enough if he simply proclaims that the abstention from pork is an option and has no redeeming value? If Grace Community Church uses their freedom in Christ to meet on Sunday, observe Christmas, erect Christmas trees, paint Easter eggs, etc., on what grounds do they refuse the Jewish believer to use his freedom in Christ to meet on Friday and observe Passover, among other things?<\/p>\n
10. Misunderstanding of the Unique but Temporal Role of the Jerusalem Church in Early Christian History<\/p>\n
The Church of Jerusalem was not the only Jewish congregation, as is evident from Galatians 1:22. This passage mentions other churches of Judea that did not know Paul by face, which would not have been a true statement as far as the Church of Jerusalem is concerned. It is true that from Acts eight onward, the Church moved away from a decidedly Jewish flavor, but this was due to a simple truth: the majority of believers, after awhile, were Gentiles; therefore, the Church began to reflect the Gentile culture. That by itself did not mean that Jewish congregations were forbidden from springing up outside of Jerusalem. Even in a Gentile majority, Jewish congregations that practiced a Jewish form of worship and culture continued to exist as late as the fourth century. (For more information, see The Church of the Circumcision by Bagatti, published by the Franciscan Press in Jerusalem.) Certainly, your statement is true that, \u201cGod never intended the church to remain Jewish\u201d; but He also never intended it to become strictly Gentile either, for Romans 11 clearly promised a remnant of Jews according to the election of grace. The existence of a Gentile majority did not by itself keep a Jewish congregation from maintaining its Jewish flavor, as the Gentiles maintain a Gentile flavor. I believe you are reading too much into what is a purely historical process recorded in the Book of Acts.
\nYour paper states that, \u201cIt was not God\u2019s intent that all the churches springing up around the Roman Empire be viewed identically by Him or by each other.\u201d This is a true statement, but you seem to fail to apply it consistently. It is true that God did not intend all the churches to have a Jewish identity, but nor did He intend for all the churches to have a Gentile identity. The way the paper is presented, this truth is applied only to the Gentile Church and not to the Jewish Church.
\nYou then spend quite a bit of time basing your theology upon a book written by Roland Allen. That book is not Scripture, nor do the passages you quote from the book cite any Scripture. Be that as it may, nothing in your quotations, by themselves, rule out the allowance for Jewish believers to have a Jewish-style congregation. They only disallow Jewish believers from enforcing their style on Gentile believers. That is a two-way street. Gentile believers have no right to enforce their style on Jewish believers either. Roland Allen is right when he states that the Jerusalem Church had no authority to impose its laws and customs upon the new Gentile churches springing up around the Empire. By the same token, the Gentile churches in the Empire had no right to enforce their own laws and customs upon the Jerusalem Church. It would appear that Grace Community Church is trying to impose its laws and customs upon Jewish congregations, and in effect rule them out. You are correct in stating that, \u201cGod did not expect the scruples of the Jerusalem church to be universally applicable, or He would have led Paul to urge all His Gentile readers to exercise the same cultural restraints.\u201d The other side of the coin is equally true, however. God did not expect the scruples of the Gentile believers to be universally applied to all Jewish believers. Paul allowed Gentiles to be Gentiles and Jews to be Jews, and Grace Community Church should do no less.
\nIt is true, as you say, that the majority of American Christians are Gentiles, but there is really no distinctive American Gentile culture as such. Within the American culture are various other cultures. There are Black churches, Swedish churches, etc. By the same token, there could be within the American context Jewish churches as well.
\nAs to your question, \u201cWhy not just start a Bible-believing local church?\u201d, the answer is that the Jewish congregations we have started are Bible-believing churches. As to your question, \u201cWhat\u2019s wrong with all of us, both Jews and Gentiles, just being Christians?\u201d, the answer is nothing; but the style of worship and music that Grace Community Church has chosen for itself is not \u201cChristian,\u201d since the Bible does not portray any specific style or order of worship. The format followed by Grace Community Church is simply \u201cGentile.\u201d If Grace Community Church can be a Bible-believing church with a Gentile form of worship, then other congregations can be Bible-believing congregations with a Jewish form of worship. It is as simple as that. The problem is, when you ask us to be more \u201cChristian,\u201d you are really asking us to be more \u201cGentile.\u201d That is the point that you seem to fail to realize.<\/p>\n
11. The Danger of Deception in Attempting to Lure Jews to Christianity<\/p>\n
It is true that \u201ca small minority of Jewish Christians disguise their Christianity to attract unsuspecting Jews to Christianity. This is deceitful, contrary to the New Testament teaching, and unworthy of evangelical Christians.\u201d But that is true of a minority and not a majority of congregations, and the misconduct of a few cannot be used to denounce the many. Most Jewish congregations, especially the two founded by Ariel Ministries, in no way try to disguise their Christianity, and the word is even used in their literature. Your statement that, \u201cIt has also been stated many times by unbelievers that they object to messianic Jews disguising their true intent, claiming to be simply holding a Jewish party, when they are really trying to attract Jews to Christ,\u201d is giving too much credence to what these unbelievers claim. Jewish unbelievers find many things objectionable, and they often state things about Jewish believers which are simply not true. Because they have already decreed Jewish believers to be non-Jews, they deny Jewish believers any right to practice anything that is Jewish. When a Jewish believer insists on practicing Jewish things, the unbelieving Jews claim that such a Jewish believer is trying to be deceitful. There is no truth to that kind of an accusation coming from the side of unbelievers, and it is a surprise that the elders of Grace Community Church give such accusations such heavy credence. Furthermore, your claim that, \u201cInstead of attracting knowledgeable Jews, such activities drive them further away and bring reproach on the Christian message,\u201d is patently untrue. Once again, I challenge the elders of Grace Community Church to attend either our Los Angeles branch or San Diego branch. See what the results have been, how knowledgeable Jews have been attracted to the gospel through us and how they have become believers, when they never would have thought of entering Grace Community Church as unbelievers.
\nThe point is, the purpose of a Jewish-Christian congregation is not merely to evangelize Jewish people, though that is part of its mission; it also evangelizes unbelieving Gentiles, for that, too, is part of its mission. The main purpose is to teach Scripture, to worship, and to fellowship. They have chosen the Jewish format, which is just as valid as the Gentile format followed by Grace Community Church. Our Jewish congregations do not \u201csustain\u201d the Old Testament system \u201cas though it were yet to be fulfilled.\u201d When we celebrate the various Jewish holy days, we do so because they have been fulfilled by the Messiah. We bring out the messianic implications quite heavily, and it is because of this that Jewish people are coming to the Messiah.
\nIt is true that Paul was not persecuted because he was trying to maintain Judaism, but it is not true that \u201che was preaching to the Jews a new faith entirely.\u201d He was certainly preaching Jesus as the Messiah, but in defending his faith he frequently referred back to it as a fulfillment of the old faith, as he did at his trial when he was being condemned by the Pharisees and Sadducees. The reason Paul was being persecuted was because he was proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah, not because he was preaching a brand new faith entirely. If his faith was entirely new, it would have been something in contradistinction to the Old Testament rather than in fulfillment of it.
\nAs to your question, \u201cWhy do the proponents of this movement advocate such a low-key, warm, comfortable approach to sharing Christ around fellow believing Jews when that was exactly the opposite approach Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the New Testament writers took?\u201d, the answer is that not all proponents advocate a low-key approach, and most congregations that I am aware of are quite open on the issue. Contrasted with the way you worded it, I think Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the New Testament writers used a loving way to propagate the gospel to their own Jewish people. I do not see where they ever asked them to become Gentiles. As to your question, \u201cAre not some of the movement\u2019s methods unethical at best and deceptive at worst?\u201d, I suspect that you might find such practices in some areas. You will also find unethical and deceptive practices in Gentile churches, but that does not negate the right of Gentile churches to exist. Again, I challenge the elders of Grace Community Church to attend our Los Angeles branch and point out what they find to be either unethical or deceptive. I can state quite dogmatically that you will find nothing either deceptive or unethical. It is true that it is difficult to make a clear presentation of the gospel without offending an unbelieving Jew; but we accept the offense that the gospel might present, and we proclaim it anyway. That is no reason why we need to add Gentile symbols which might be offensive in a way never intended by Scripture. If the unbelieving Jewish person is offended by the gospel, this we cannot compromise, and we would let him be offended; but there are other areas where offenses are not necessary, and such things can easily be put away. At none of our branches is the gospel ever compromised for any reason.<\/p>\n
12. The Danger of Compromising Accommodation to Keep Jews Within Christianity<\/p>\n
I am not so sure that it is \u201cmost advocates\u201d who say that the purpose for such congregations is to make an unbelieving Jew feel more comfortable in coming to Christ. At least in our framework, that is a secondary purpose. Our primary purpose still remains to allow Jewish believers a Bible-believing church in which a Jewish style of worship is conducted. Your first paragraph asks a series of questions which I find highly irrelevant. How does Grace Community Church know exactly how communion was practiced in the early church? With little, cute, round wafers? With white bread cut into squares? With matzos? Do you really believe the early church used Welch\u2019s grape juice? What about the agape meal? If you find my questions irrelevant, so are yours. The lack of knowledge of exactly how something was done in a certain century does not negate a form of practice in the twentieth century, insofar as that practice does not militate against the clear teaching of Scripture.
\nYour description as to how Gentile Christians can do the work of Jewish evangelism better than Jewish Christians shows a lack of experience in the area. I, too, have seen Jewish people come to the Lord through regular Gentile churches. I have also seen many Jewish people, who have come to such a service leave in disgust. Many others will not even think of attending. The point is, there is no single best way of reaching Jews for the Lord, and all of these are valid options. There are Jews who are reached through a congregational approach who would never have been reached by a Gentile-Christian church approach. There are Jews who are won to Christ by other Jewish believers who would never listen to a Gentile believer expounding his faith. Human success rate is never a criterion for the validity of other approaches in other areas.
\nThat completes my discussion on the twelve issues you have raised. Again, the enclosed book, Hebrew Christianity, will answer some of these very questions in more detail, and with more exegetical grounds.
\nI will be glad to meet with you face-to-face anytime you would like to discuss these issues further, since I do not live that far from you. But again, as your paper reads now, it is filled with deficiencies, mistakes, and errors in the light of the Scriptures. And you need to re-evaluate your paper before it has spread too far, and everybody takes it to be the official and final position of Grace Community Church.<\/p>\n
Yours for the salvation of Israel,<\/p>\n
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
\nDirector<\/p>\n
Postscript: A letter from Grace Community Church acknowledged receipt of the above response, but did not in turn respond to the content or arguments presented above. Nor did the elders of the Church accept the invitation to discuss these issues face-to-face.<\/p>\n
APPENDIX IV<\/p>\n
A SURVEY OF THE HEBREW CHRISTIAN\/MESSIANIC JEWISH EPISTLES<\/p>\n
THE BOOK OF HEBREWS<\/p>\n
The Book of Hebrews is the only epistle in which the author is not named. There have been at least eleven different suggestions as to who the author might be, but most of the controversy centers around the question as to whether Paul was or was not the author. This work takes no position as to the identity of the author, but two things about the author can be deduced from what he wrote. First, he must have been a Jewish believer because of his intimate knowledge of Mosaic Judaism and certain Jewish traditions outside the Scriptures. Second, he was a second generation Jewish believer, because he excluded himself from the apostles who were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus (2:3\u20134).
\nMore knowledge can be gained about the recipients of the epistle than the author. First, they were obviously Jewish, and the author writes with full expectation that his readers will respect the Old Testament. The whole back drop of the letter is from Jewish history and religion. Second, they were Jewish believers, because only these would be in danger of going back into Judaism. Furthermore, the author uses terminology which could only be true of believers, such as brethren (3:1, 12); beloved (6:9); partakers of a heavenly calling (3:1); partakers of Christ (3:14); and he gives certain warnings which were applicable only to believers (3:12\u201313). Third, like the author, they were second generation Jewish believers, since they had heard the gospel from eyewitnesses, but were not eyewitnesses themselves (2:3\u20134). Fourth, they had been believers for some time, yet had remained or regressed into spiritual immaturity (5:11\u201314). Fifth, they obviously knew the author personally (13:19, 23). Sixth, at the time the epistle was written, they were experiencing heavy persecution and were wavering in their faith and considering going back into Judaism, at least temporarily, in order to escape the persecution (10:32\u201338).
\nAs for the location of the Jewish believers, at least twelve suggestions have been made, but only three have any real merit. The first is Rome; however, few in Rome would have been evangelized by eyewitnesses (2:3\u20134) and, being so far from Jerusalem, the pull to return to the sacrificial system would not have been as strong as it appears to be in the book. The second key suggestion is Jerusalem; however, this, too, seems unlikely, since the believers of Jerusalem would have heard Christ speak and this group had not (2:3\u20134). Furthermore, the readers were known for their charity (6:10; 10:34), whereas the saints of Jerusalem were known for their poverty (Acts 11:29; Rom. 15:25\u201327; 1 Cor. 16:1\u20138). Finally, the author makes it clear that there has been no martyrdom among his readers (12:4); but by then the Church of Jerusalem had already lost Stephen (Acts 7:59\u201360) and James the Apostle (Acts 12:2), among others (Acts 8:1\u20133; 26:10). The third suggestion is perhaps the best: the epistle was written to the Jewish believers of Judea outside Jerusalem, which very early had established a plurality of churches of their own (Gal. 1:22). Because of their location, they were undergoing severe persecution, short of martyrdom, and the sacrificial system was a real pull because of their proximity to Jerusalem.
\nThe occasion and purpose of the epistle can be gleaned from the letter itself. Jewish believers were experiencing tremendous persecution and were seriously contemplating going back into Judaism, at least temporarily, until the persecution subsided. Afterwards, they felt they could start the spiritual life all over again and, by so doing, they could erase the sin of their apostasy. This is the option they thought they had, but the writer will explain that they had no such option. If they were to go back to the sacrificial system, they will identify themselves with the same generation that rejected the Messiahship of Jesus, and this will put them under the judgment of A.D. 70, the judgment for the unpardonable sin. The author is writing to warn them against going back because of the consequences. He wants to do at least three things in his epistle: first, to combat possible apostasy (2:1\u20134; 10:19\u201325); second, to encourage them to press on to spiritual maturity (5:11\u201314; 10:32\u201339); and, third, to comfort them in their persecutions (11:1\u201312:3).
\nThe author\u2019s method is twofold. First, he wants to show them the superiority of the Messiah to the three pillars of Judaism: angels, Moses, and the Levitical Priesthood. This he does by way of contrast. This is not a contrast between the bad and the good, for both are from God. The contrast is between the good and the better. Second, while going through his argumentation in a very logical manner, he makes five deviations from his logical order to give five warnings. Each of these five warnings are based on something he has just said, which is now applied to the particular situation of his readers.
\nThe Book of Hebrews has two main divisions: first, the superiority of the Son in His person and work (1:1\u201310:18); and, second, the practical application of the superiority of the Son in the life of the believers (10:19\u201313:25).<\/p>\n
I. THE SUPERIORITY OF THE SON IN HIS PERSON AND WORK\u20141:1\u201310:18<\/p>\n
A. The Theme\u20141:1\u20133<\/p>\n
In the past, God chose to reveal Himself in divers portions and divers manners. By various portions, the author emphasizes the quantitative aspect, or what theologians like to call progressive revelation. Sometimes it was as little as Obadiah (one chapter), or as much as Isaiah (66 chapters). From the first to the last book of the Old Testament, a thousand years transpired. By various manners, the author emphasizes the qualitative aspect, in that the revelation of the Old Testament came in various ways (creative acts, patriarchs, angels, prophets, shepherds, priests, kings) and in various forms (laws, visions, types, prophecies). In these last days (New Testament times), God revealed Himself through the Messianic Son. This is followed by seven statements to show the eligibility of the Son to be the final Revealer. First, he is the heir of all things, which emphasizes the Son as the Lord of the universe and the goal of history. Second, through the Son the ages were made, which emphasizes the Son as the beginning point of the universe and the beginning of history. It includes all that exists in the world under the aspect of time throughout its successive time periods (ages). Third, He is the brightness of God\u2019s glory, which pictures the Son as the Shechinah Glory, which was true of Him before all history. Fourth, the Son is the image of the Father\u2019s substance, emphasizing the Son as the precise reproduction of the divine essence of the Father, which was also true of Him before all history. Fifth, He upholds all things by the word of His power, picturing the Son as the Sustainer and Governor of the universe, which is His work throughout all history. Sixth, He made purification for sin, emphasizing the Son as the Redeemer of man, which is His role in history. Seventh, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High, which emphasizes His present position as the Sovereign of man, an act that took place at a certain point in history when His work on earth was finished.
\nWith the theme now clearly stated, the author shows the superiority of the Son to the three pillars of Judaism.<\/p>\n
B. The Superiority of the Son to Angels\u20141:4\u20132:18<\/p>\n
1. The Superiority of the Son to the Angels by Virtue of His Deity\u20141:4\u201314<\/p>\n
The author begins with a prepositional statement of the Son\u2019s superiority to angels (1:4) and this is followed by seven citations from the Old Testament to prove it (1:5\u201313). The first citation is from Psalm 2:7, showing the Son\u2019s positional relationship to the Father in that this one alone was declared to be the unique Son of God. While angels are called sons of God collectively, not one angel is ever called \u201cson of God\u201d individually, as is the case with the Messiah. The second citation is from 2 Samuel 7:14, relating the Son as the head of the Davidic Covenant and the future messianic ruler over Israel. No angel could ever be the messianic ruler over Israel. The third citation is from Psalm 97:7, which calls upon the angels to worship the Son. The fact that He is worshipped by angels shows that He is deity and they are not. Furthermore, the worshipped is superior to the worshipper. The fourth citation is from Psalm 104:4, which pictures the angels as servants, and servants are subservient to the master. Angles were created to serve the Son. The fifth citation is from Psalm 45:7\u20138, which emphasizes the deity of the Son and His authority in the future Messianic Kingdom. This emphasizes the eternity of the Son in contrast to the transitoriness of angels. The sixth citation is from Psalm 102:25\u201327, picturing the Son as the unchanging Creator, sovereign over the changes of the universe, which is not true of any angel. The seventh citation is from Psalm 110:1, which pictures the Son as enthroned in glory and seated at the right hand of God, a position not shared by any angel. The author then draws his conclusion, giving the status of angels (1:14). Angels are still busy doing their work in the role of servants, and they are servants of the Son ministering to believers inheriting salvation.<\/p>\n
2. The First Warning: The Danger of Drifting\u20142:1\u20134<\/p>\n
In light of the superiority of the Son to the angels, there is an application to the Jewish believers to whom the author is writing. Because of the superiority of the Son, they must pay close attention to His revelation, lest they drift away from it like an untied boat. Revelation that came through the Son carries far more solemn obligations for the recipients than does revelation mediated through angels. If the law, which was mediated through angels, proved firm and disobedience brought physical punishment, how can they hope to escape physical punishment if they neglect a salvation mediated through the Son? Salvation is obviously in their possession, but they are neglecting it and becoming indifferent to it. Yet, this was a salvation first announced by the Messiah Himself, witnessed to by the eyewitness accounts of the Apostles and authenticated through signs, wonders, powers and gifts of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
3. The Superiority of the Son to Angels by Virtue of His Humanity\u20142:5\u20139<\/p>\n
Since angels are servants, they cannot be rulers over the age to come (2:5), the future Messianic Kingdom. The author then quotes Psalm 8:5\u20137 (2:6\u20138) to prove that God gave to man the dominion of the earth. Adam was created a little lower than the angels and was given this dominion; but he lost it through sin, and today the earth is being ruled by angels: Satan, the prince of this world, and his demons. Man\u2019s promised dominion has never been fulfilled, so we do not yet see all things put under His feet; but the Messiah regained the dominion for man (2:9), and man will be associated with Him in His messianic rule. The author\u2019s argument is that in Genesis (1:26\u201327), sovereignty over the earth was promised to man and not to angels. That sovereignty was lost through the fall, although the title still belongs to man. The Messiah, the representative man, has won this sovereignty back for man and this will be exercised in the Messianic Kingdom. This rule was never promised to angels. Although when He became man He was made lower than the angels, as a man He will rule the earth and they will not. In that sense, even in His humanity, as in His deity, He is superior to angels.<\/p>\n
4. The Superiority of the Son to Angels by Virtue of the Kind of Salvation He Provided\u20142:10\u201318<\/p>\n
The author now answers the question as to why the Messiah had to die (2:10a), pointing out that when He chose to provide salvation for fallen man, He chose to bypass fallen angels. He then gives four reasons for the incarnation and the cross (2:10b\u201318). The first reason was to manifest divine grace (2:10b\u201313). The Messiah became a man so that the sanctifier and the sanctified could be united and He could call them brethren (2:10b\u201311). The author then quotes Psalm 22:22 and Isaiah 8:17\u201318 to show the Messiah\u2019s identification with man (2:12\u201313). The second reason was to overcome the prince of death (2:14). At the incarnation the Son took hold of human nature without its sin and held it as something additional; He added to His divine nature flesh and blood. This rendered Him capable of dying, and by means of death He rendered Satan\u2019s power inoperative as far as believers are concerned. The third reason was to free the believer from the fear of death (2:15). The fear of death enslaves man, but the believer is freed both from the fear of death and from death itself, because, for the believer, death is no longer a punishment but the means of entering heaven. The fourth reason was to help man (2:16\u201318). The sphere of the Messiah\u2019s work was man and not angels (2:16). For this reason, the Messiah did not take on \u201cangelanity,\u201d to coin a word, but only humanity. He took on a specific type of humanity; he came from the seed of Abraham; He became a Jew. The scope of Messiah\u2019s work was redemption (2:17), and He was made like unto his brethren, that is, He became a Jew for three reasons: to become merciful, which is an attribute of humanity; to become faithful, in the administration of His priestly functions; and, to become a priest, a function that required humanity. In this way, He made propitiation for the sins of the people by satisfying the righteous demands of God. Now there is an application of the Messiah\u2019s work to individual men in the conflict of life (2:18), in that He can help us in our temptations, having experienced these things Himself. His point in this section is that the Redeemer is superior to the redeemed, but the redeemed are superior to those for whom no redemption was provided. In this sense, the Son is superior to angels because of the nature of the salvation which He has provided.<\/p>\n
C. The Superiority of the Son to Moses\u20143:1\u20134:13<\/p>\n
1. The Superiority of the Son to Moses in His Person and Work\u20143:1\u20134<\/p>\n
This section is based on Numbers 12:5\u20138 and the point of this comparison is faithfulness (3:1). Defection in the Old Testament was under faithful Moses. Now a greater than Moses is here. So will there be another defection? The Messiah is declared to be both an Apostle and a High Priest. An apostle is one who represents God to man, and in the sense being used herein, an apostle is one by whom a dispensation and covenant came into being. This was true of both Moses and Jesus (John 1:17). Through Moses came the Mosaic Covenant and the Dispensation of the Law. Through Jesus came the New Covenant and the Dispensation of Grace. In this way, Jesus is like Moses. A high priest is one who represents man to God, and in this way Jesus is like Aaron. Moses was the highest example of human faithfulness (3:2), but the Messiah is greater in faithfulness than Moses, in that Moses failed, but the Messiah never failed. The proof of the superiority lies in the fact that the builder of the house is superior to the house that he builds (3:3). The \u201chouse\u201d is the House of Israel. Moses is in the House of Israel, but the Messiah is the builder of the house. In fact, He is the builder of all things (3:4).<\/p>\n
2. The Superiority of the Son to Moses in His Position\u20143:5\u20136<\/p>\n
Moses was faithful in the house as a servant (3:5), but the Messiah is the Son of the Lord of the house (3:6) which makes Him superior.<\/p>\n
3. The Second Warning: The Danger of Disobedience\u20143:7\u20134:13<\/p>\n
In this section, based on Numbers 13\u201314, the author deals with the concept of rest and discusses three kinds of rest. First is, creation rest, which points to a finished work and a cessation of activity. It is a type of redemption rest with a twofold application. First, it means to trust the finished work of the Messiah and not go back to the works of the law; and, second, it refers to the rest the believer gets when he dies, for his work on earth is finished. The second is Canaan rest, which points to the rest from struggling with the enemy. It is a type of consecration rest which involves the subjection of the heart, mind and will to God\u2019s power, enabling one to conquer sin. The third is Sabbath rest which points to a spiritual rest and is a type of spiritual maturity in this life.<\/p>\n
(a) The Second Warning: The Admonition Against Disobedience\u20143:7\u201319<\/p>\n
(1) The Old Testament Lesson\u20143:7\u201311<\/p>\n
In light of the fact that the Son is superior to Moses, the author makes his application (3:7a). He quotes Psalm 95:7\u201311 (3:7b\u201311) in order to warn them against apostatizing through disobedience as Israel once did at Kadesh Barnea as they stood at the border of the Promised Land. The mention of forty years is significant, since at the time of the writing of Hebrews it had been about forty years since the crucifixion. God\u2019s reaction to the unbelief at Kadesh Barnea was anger against that same generation that came out of Egypt, and so they failed to enter into the land and failed to enjoy Canaan rest.<\/p>\n
(2) The Application of the Lesson\u20143:12\u201315<\/p>\n
Negatively (3:12), they must also avoid developing a heart of unbelief. Positively (3:13), the Jewish believers must exhort one another against the sin of apostasy. The reason this is necessary (3:14) is because only by the retention of their faith can they outwardly prove they have really believed, since faith itself is invisible. He then quotes Psalm 95:7 again (3:15) to show the urgency of the matter.<\/p>\n
(3) The Interpretation of the Lesson\u20143:16\u201319<\/p>\n
The author interprets the Old Testament lesson by asking three questions. The first question (3:16) is: Who were the provokers? The answer is: The very people God rescued from Egypt, the very ones who had been delivered from bondage in Egypt, who started out for the Promised Land, the ones who missed the life and land of rest because of unbelief. The second question (3:17) is: Who was it that sinned? The answer is: They who sinned were the ones God redeemed from Egypt; they sinned and suffered its consequences and the unbelief manifested itself in open sin throughout the whole forty years. The punishment, of course, was physical death, since not all who died physically were spiritually lost. The third question (3:18) is: Who did He say would not enter into rest? The answer is: They who disobeyed, and disobedience brought judgment. The conclusion (3:19) is: They could not enter into the rest they started out for by faith because of unbelief. The argument of this section is that the same generation redeemed from Egypt failed to enter the land because of apostasy. The present generation is in a similar danger. It has been almost forty years since the Messiah died. After forty years in the wilderness, many died. Now many of them may die in the A.D. 70 destruction if they go back to the old system.<\/p>\n
(b) The Argument Concerning the Rest of Faith\u20144:1\u201310<\/p>\n
In light of Israel\u2019s initial failure to enter into Canaan rest, there is a danger of the present Jewish believers also failing to enter into rest (4:1). The promise of rest is still available, but it is possible that their faith will be so tested by their present experience that they may fall short. The readers are without excuse, for they had the message proclaimed to them (4:2). In the situation of Kadesh Barnea, a report was proclaimed by twelve men (the twelve spies). Now another report has been proclaimed by twelve men (the twelve Apostles). So what will they do with this report? Quoting Psalm 95:11 again (4:3), the author shows that there are believers entering into creation rest. He proceeds to quote two more Old Testament passages to show that the rest had been prepared, but Israel failed to enter into that rest (4:4\u20135). He first quotes Genesis 2:2 (4:4) to show that creation rest had been prepared, and then he quotes Psalm 95:11 (4:5) to prove that Israel failed to enter that rest. Certain ones were to enter into that rest but failed (4:6); however, God did not withdraw the offer of rest for believers and reoffered it through David, who penned Psalm 95 (4:7). If Joshua had provided the ultimate rest, it would not be reoffered later (4:8). While Joshua did give them rest from their enemies, he did not provide true consecration rest, since this could only come through the Messiah. Now that the Messiah has come, there is a Sabbath rest which is available today, but must be entered into by faith (4:9). Using the present tense, the author shows it is available right now. It is the rest of spiritual maturity. It is a Sabbath rest because the one who has entered into it has ceased from his own works as God did from His (4:10).<\/p>\n
(c) The Exhortation to Enter into Rest\u20144:11\u201313<\/p>\n
In light of its availability today, the readers must press on to enter into that rest (4:11), and not make the mistake of Kadesh Barnea. The reason they must do this is because unbelief will not go undetected (4:12\u201313). The reason they must give diligence is because unbelief will be detected by the Word of God (4:12). The Word of God is living and working and will someday call us into account. The detection is so complete that there is nothing that will not be manifested by the Word (4:13).<\/p>\n
(d) The Superiority of the Son to Aaron and the Levitical Priesthood\u20144:14\u201310:18<\/p>\n
This is the author\u2019s most extensive comparison, which is done by showing five better things.<\/p>\n
1. A Better Position\u20144:14\u201316<\/p>\n
The author now encourages his readers to take advantage of the kind of High Priest that they have (4:14). In contrast to Aaron, who went in and came out of the earthly Holy of Holies, our High Priest has passed through the heavens and remained there. The place of His ministry is in heaven, so He is able to represent His own in the very presence of God, For this reason, the Jewish believers must hold fast to their confession that Jesus is the Messiah. The reason they must hold fast is because the kind of High Priest that they have is One who can be touched with the feelings of their infirmities (4:15). He was tempted in the same areas of life as they, but He remained sinless. Because He was tempted, He can now be touched. For that reason, these Jewish believers must come boldly to the throne of grace in order to appropriate the grace they need to get them through this trial (4:16).
\nThe point is: our High Priest has a better position in that He functions in heaven and not on earth.<\/p>\n
2. A Better Priest\u20145:1\u20137:28<\/p>\n
(a) The Prerequisites for Priesthood\u20145:1\u20134<\/p>\n
In order to show how Jesus qualified to even be a priest, the author first lists four qualifications for priesthood. First, he had to be a man (5:1a), for in order to be humane, he had to be human. This is necessary since he represents men to God. Second, he had to function in a specific priestly order (5:1b) that had a system of gifts and offerings. Third, he had to be compassionate (5:2\u20133), which was an advantage of his humanity and is the reason he could deal gently with the ignorant and the erring. Fourth, he had to be appointed by God just as Aaron was (5:4).<\/p>\n
(b) The Qualifications of the Son\u20145:5\u201310<\/p>\n
The author now shows that Jesus fulfilled all four requirements. First, Jesus was divinely appointed (5:5\u20136) and this is proved by two quotations from the Old Testament: Psalm 2:7, emphasizing that only a Son of God could serve as this kind of priest; and, Psalm 110:4, which emphasizes the divine appointment itself. Second, Jesus was human (5:7) as His prayers, supplications, crying, and tears in the days of His flesh clearly show. Third, He was compassionate (5:8) and learned compassion through His sufferings. Fourth, Jesus functions in a priestly order (5:9\u201310), the Order of Melchizedek.<\/p>\n
(c) The Third Warning: Exhortation to Progress to Maturity\u20145:11\u20136:20<\/p>\n
Having mentioned the Order of Melchizedek, the author temporarily drops the subject and will pick it up again in 6:20 and 7:1. His concern is that his readers will not understand what he is about to say because of their failure to mature in the faith. So he must stop and give his third warning as he applies what he has said so far.<\/p>\n
(1) The Fact of Stagnation: The Spiritual Problems\u20145:11\u201314<\/p>\n
The author has much to say about the Order of Melchizedek and will pick it up again later, but he feels the readers are not ready to discuss such a difficult doctrine because of their spiritual dullness (5:11). Their obligation as believers is to develop a sensitive hearing of things hard of interpretation. The reason (5:12) is not a lack of time, because they had believed for some time, long enough to be teachers of the Word; but, instead, they need to be retaught the basics of the Word of God. They can still handle only the milk of the Word and not the meat. The milk represents the basics of the Scriptures, while the meat represents advanced biblical doctrine and its application to the issue of the spiritual life. Their obligation is to develop ability in teaching instead of being retaught the same things over and over again. The author then explains what constitutes babyhood (5:13). It is the failure to make practical use of the knowledge they had, and they are, therefore, without experience of the Word of righteousness. They know that the Messiah was the final sacrifice for sin, yet they see nothing wrong with contemplating going back to Judaism. Their obligation is to develop skill in discussing the major problems of biblical doctrine. Finally, the author explains what constitutes maturity (5:14). The mature believer is one who has an unrestricted diet and can handle the meat of the Word of God, such as the doctrine of the Melchizedekian Priesthood. This was attained by using what was known. It was the result of careful exercise so that he learned to discern between good and evil and learned how to make responsible decisions. The obligation here is the proper use for all believers of what they know.<\/p>\n
(2) The Need for Progression\u20146:1\u20138<\/p>\n
Their condition shows their need for spiritual growth and the danger of relapse. In order to progress, they need to leave the first principles of the Word of God (6:1\u20133), which constitute the milk of the Word of which there are six. First is the foundation of repentance from dead works. The works are those of the Levitical system, now dead because they have come to an end with the death of the Messiah. Second is faith toward God; their once-and-for-all commitment to the Messiahship of Jesus. Third is the teaching of washings or baptisms. These are the ceremonial washings of the Levitical system. Fourth is the laying on of hands, a reference to the laying on of hands on the heads of the sacrifice, which was a means of identification. Fifth is the resurrection from the dead, an Old Testament doctrine. Sixth is eternal judgment of the Great White Throne and the Lake of Fire. These six things must be settled in their hearts once and for all and then left behind for the meat of the Word of God.
\nThis is important because of the impossibility of repeating the past (6:4\u20136). In other words, the option they think they have, they do not; but they do have two other options. The option they think they have is to temporarily give up their salvation, go back to Judaism, wait until the persecution subsides, and then be saved again later; this new salvation would erase their sin of apostasy. This is the option they do not have. In fact, that option is impossible (6:4a). It is impossible for those who have had five spiritual experiences to give up their salvation and be saved again later (6:4b\u20135). These five spiritual experiences show them to be real believers. The first is having been once enlightened, which speaks of the decisive moment when they apprehended the Light, believed, and were regenerated. Second, they have tasted of the heavenly gift; they have fully appropriated the Messiah Himself. Third, they were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, which shows that they had experienced the Spirit\u2019s indwelling. Fourth, they had tasted the good word of God; they had experienced the spoken word and recognized it to be from God. Fifth, they had tasted the powers of the age to come, the power that will be fully manifested in the Messianic Kingdom. These five things show them to be real believers, and for those who are real believers it is impossible for them to do something. What is impossible for them to do (6:6) is to fall away, or to give up or lose their salvation and then be saved again later. The reason this is impossible is because it would require a recrucifixion of Jesus. If that were to happen, it would put Him to open shame, for it would mean that His first death was insufficient to save to the uttermost, to save completely. His first death has provided a complete salvation and has saved the believer to the uttermost. It is impossible for those who have experienced these five spiritual privileges to lose their salvation and to be saved again later.
\nThey do have two other options. The first is to go back to Judaism, which will confirm their immaturity and will make them subject to the judgment of A.D. 70. This will mean physical death now and loss of rewards later. The second option is to make their break from Judaism once and for all and press on to maturity. For Jewish believers, that final break comes by water baptism. The two options are taught by way of an illustration (6:7\u20138). The law of human life teaches that condemnation follows the neglect of blessings, and this can be seen in nature (6:7). We look for certain results from certain conditions. The blessings of God (rain) fall on all believers (earth). Some produce fruit, and some do not. Eventually, they all must be judged, and the results will be rewards for fruitfulness and disapproval for fruitlessness. Judgment will be the result of not going on to maturity and fruitfulness (6:8). Fruitlessness is disapproved; it is nigh unto a curse, meaning the nearness of judgment that has not yet fallen; and going back to the law is to place oneself under the curse of the law (Gal. 3:10, 13). The end is to be burned. It is not the land itself that is burned, but the product of a fruitless land, which is thorns and thistles. In the same way it is not the believer who is burned, but the works of wood, hay and stubble (John 15:6; 1 Cor. 3:10\u201315).<\/p>\n
(3) The Certainty of Salvation: The Spiritual Action\u20146:9\u201320<\/p>\n
The fact of the danger of relapse does not exclude the consolation of hope. The believer\u2019s responsibility is to produce the works which accompany salvation (6:9\u201312). The author is persuaded that they will make the right decision, even if he has been forced to use such harsh language (6:9). The proof that they have their salvation is in their works (6:10). They have produced and still are producing good works (6:11), and it is not that these things are not appreciated; but now it is important that they go on to maturity (6:11) and fulfill the obligations of 5:11\u201314, that is, not to be sluggish but to press on to maturity as others have done though faith and patient endurance (6:12).
\nGod\u2019s promises can never fail, and this is His part to encourage them to maturity (6:13\u201320). The promises to Abraham implied a future fulfillment and this demanded the exercise of patient endurance (6:13\u201315). The author quotes from Genesis 22:16\u201317 to show that Abraham waited twenty-five years before the promise of Isaac\u2019s birth was fulfilled. There is now an unfulfilled promise to us, and we must wait for it with patient endurance (6:16\u201318). The promise is that He will return for us someday. The Messiah\u2019s entrance into heaven is the basis of our certainty as to its future fulfillment (6:19\u201320). Our hope goes right into the presence of God, for our Messiah is there (6:19). The things we have believed about Him are true, and we have fled for refuge to Him. Now we must exercise patient endurance until we attain the hope set before us, the hope of the Messiah\u2019s return. The Messiah\u2019s entry into heaven makes Him a forerunner (6:20), and where our forerunner has entered for us, we are to follow later. The author closes this third warning by identifying Jesus as the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek and returns to the topic he left off at 5:10.<\/p>\n
(d) The Priesthood of Melchizedek\u20147:1\u201328<\/p>\n
Now the author is ready to explain the Order of Melchizedek, and the various comparisons are based on the very limited revelation in the Old Testament about Melchizedek. This revelation was limited so that the resemblance could be extensive. The Old Testament background is Genesis 14:18\u201320 and Psalm 110:4. The author makes three comparisons.<\/p>\n
(1) The Origin of Melchizedek\u20147:1\u20133<\/p>\n
The first comparison is between Jesus and Melchizedek. The author begins by showing the characteristics of Melchizedek, and he draws six similarities. First, Melchizedek was a priest-king: he was the priest of God Most High, and the king of Salem, or Jerusalem. Second, his priesthood issued in blessing in that he blessed Abraham. Third, he received tithes from Abraham and the giving of tithes was a recognition of superiority. Fourth, he had an independent priesthood, in that it was not based on ancestry as was the Levitical Order. For that reason, there is no genealogy given for Melchizedek, since it was unnecessary for his priesthood. His appointment was independent of human relations. Fifth, it was timeless in that the Genesis account gives no beginning or ending of his priesthood. As far as the biblical record is concerned, he abides a priest continually. The Levitical priest could only serve from the ages of 25 to 50 (Num. 8:24\u201325). The sixth similarity is that it was all-inclusive, in that Melchizedek ministered to all and not just to one nation, as was the case of the Levites. The point of all this is that Melchizedek was made like unto the Son of God; not that he was the Son of God, but that he was a type of the Messiah in these six similarities.<\/p>\n
(2) The Order of Melchizedek\u20147:4\u201310<\/p>\n
In this section the author makes a second comparison between the Melchizedekian Priesthood and the Levitical Priesthood, showing the superiority of the Melchizedekian in four ways. First, Melchizedek accepted tithes from Abraham (7:4\u20135). The Levitical Priesthood also collected tithes, but they collected from their brethren while Melchizedek collected from their father. The second superiority is seen in the sphere of blessing (7:6\u20137), in that Melchizedek blessed Abraham (7:6) and the blessor is superior to the one blessed (7:7). The third superiority (7:8) is that the Levitical Priesthood was administered by dying men and provision was made for succession. This was not so with Melchizedek, who represents the living, not the dying. The Melchizedekian Order is eternal. The fourth superiority is shown in respect to Levi, the founder of the Tribe of Levi, who paid tithes to Abraham (7:9\u201310) in a seminal relationship. The point of this section is that Jesus is a priest after the Order of Melchizedek and not after the Order of Aaron and, therefore, superior. If the Jewish fathers were obliged to recognize the superiority of the Melchizedekian Order, so should the sons.<\/p>\n
(3) The Office of Priest\u20147:11\u201325<\/p>\n
The third comparison is between the Levitical Priesthood with that of Jesus in order to explain why the Levitical Priesthood could not bring perfection. He discusses the old priesthood first (7:11\u201319) and points out two things. First, the old priesthood was changeable (7:11\u201314). There never was any perfection through the Levitical Priesthood (7:11), which is why God predicted through David of another priest to arise that would not be after the Levitical Order. Such a change of priesthood also required a change of the Law of Moses (7:12), because there was an inseparable connection between the Levitical Priesthood and the Law of Moses. This required the doing away of the Law of Moses. Psalm 110:4 speaks of a priest from David\u2019s line (7:13), which clearly infers that the coming priest would not be of the Levitical Order. The Messiah had to be of a different order, for there could be no priests from the Tribe of Judah under the law (7:14). Second, the old priesthood was temporary (7:15\u201319). if there was to be another priest after the Order of Melchizedek, then obviously the Levitical Order had to be temporary (7:15), for they could not co-exist. The contrast (7:16) is that the old was based on the law, and the Levitical priest was a priest only because his father was one. The new priesthood is based on the power of an endless life, for Jesus became a priest only after His resurrection. He then quotes from Psalm 110:4 to prove the eternity of the new priest (7:17). What he said had to happen in verse 12 now has happened (7:18), and the law was set aside for two reasons: its weakness, since it could not impart the strength to fulfill its demands; and, its unprofitableness, since it could not bring perfection. This clearly teaches that the Law of Moses was abolished or put away. The law never could bring perfection, so a new priesthood and priest became necessary (7:15).
\nThe author then states two things about the new priesthood (7:20\u201325). First, it is immutable or unchangeable (7:20\u201322). The Aaronic system was not based on an oath, but on descendancy, while the new priesthood is based on the oath of God (7:20\u201321). The result is that the Messiah is the guarantor of the New Covenant (7:22). Second, the new priesthood is uninterrupted (7:23\u201325). Death kept the priest in the old priesthood from continuing (7:23), but Jesus abides forever and His priesthood remains uninterrupted (7:24). The result is that He is able to save the believer to the uttermost (7:25), since He ever lives to make intercession for us.<\/p>\n
(4) The Conclusion\u20147:26\u201328<\/p>\n
The author now draws the conclusion of the second main comparison. He points out that what we needed was a spotless priest, and now we have one (7:26). What we needed was a sufficient sacrifice, and now we have one (7:27). The contrast is one of weakness and strength (7:28). The Levitical was under the law and was ministered by dying men. The Melchizedekian was based on an oath made after the law was given, since Psalm 110:4 came after the law. It is ministered by the Eternal Son who is eternally perfected. The Levitical has been comprehensively replaced.
\nThe point is this: our High Priest is better because He is after the Order of Melchizedek and not after the Order of Aaron.<\/p>\n
3. A Better Covenant\u20148:1\u201313<\/p>\n
(a) The Basis of the New Covenant\u20148:1\u20136<\/p>\n
The author now makes his third main comparison and begins with a summary statement (8:1\u20132), that we have a unique High Priest who serves in the heavenly tabernacle and has taken His seat at the right hand of God the Father. He gives the proof of the Messiah\u2019s exalted ministry through two syllogisms (8:3\u20135). The first syllogism (8:3) is:<\/p>\n
Major Premise A priest\u2019s office is to offer sacrifices;<\/p>\n
Minor Premise Jesus is a priest;<\/p>\n
Conclusion Jesus must have something to offer (to be discussed in 9:11\u201310:18).<\/p>\n
The second syllogism (8:4\u20135) is:<\/p>\n
Major Premise The sphere of Messiah\u2019s priestly office could be heavenly or earthly;<\/p>\n
Minor Premise It cannot be earthly for there are other priests officiating in accordance to the law;<\/p>\n
Conclusion The Messiah\u2019s ministry must be in the heavenly tabernacle (to be discussed in 9:1\u201310).<\/p>\n
The earthly tabernacle was circumscribed by rigid law, which even Moses could not break; so the sphere of Messiah\u2019s ministry had to be in heaven. The author then draws his conclusion (8:6). Jesus now serves in a more excellent ministry which is based on a better covenant containing better promises. The New Covenant is the basis for His High Priesthood in a better sanctuary (9:1\u201310) and ratified by a better sacrifice with better blood (9:11\u201310:18).<\/p>\n
(b) The Proof of the Superiority of the New Covenant\u20148:7\u201312<\/p>\n
The author begins with a statement of superiority (8:7), that if the Mosaic Covenant was faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant. To prove there was such a need (8:8\u201312), he quotes Jeremiah 31:31\u201334, not to prove it is being fulfilled in the Church, but to prove that the prophets anticipated the replacement of the Mosaic Covenant on which the old priesthood rested, and the introduction of the New Covenant on which the new priesthood is based.<\/p>\n
(c) The Conclusion\u20148:13<\/p>\n
Once Jeremiah said new, he made the Mosaic the old, which points to its temporariness. Furthermore, that which has become old is on its way to vanishing away. The Mosaic Covenant became old under Jeremiah and vanished away with the death of the Messiah. It became too old (not archaios, meaning old in point of time, but palaios, meaning old in point of use, worn out, outmoded, useless).
\nThe point is this: we have a better priest because His priesthood is based on a better covenant which is eternal and not temporary, and it contains better promises.<\/p>\n
4. A Better Sanctuary\u20149:1\u201310<\/p>\n
(a) The Parts and the Furniture of the Tabernacle\u20149:1\u20135<\/p>\n
The author begins his fourth main comparison by discussing the old order (9:1), the Holy Place (9:2) and the Holy of Holies (9:3\u20135a). His intent (9:5b) is not to give the details of everything, but only to give an outline of the way of approach to God. The important thing is not the type, but the reality. The Tabernacle is a type of the Messiah in its basic outline and not in the details.<\/p>\n
(b) The Priestly Service\u20149:6\u20137<\/p>\n
The author next deals with the ministry in the Holy Place (9:6), emphasizing the continual, unending work of the Levitical priest. As for the Holy of Holies (9:7), the emphasis is on the limited access to God\u2019s presence, for only the High Priest could enter. Only one man, out of one family, out of one clan, out of one tribe, out of one nation, out of one race, could enter, and even then only one day in the year and not without blood.<\/p>\n
(c) The Limitation of the Earthly Sanctuary\u20149:8\u201310<\/p>\n
Three lessons are to be learned from all this. First, the earthly sanctuary was unable to provide a way of free access to God (9:8). Second, it was unable to make the worshipper perfect in relationship to his conscience (9:9), which is why it was temporary for the time present. Third, these were all externals only (9:10) and, therefore, inadequate. They were temporarily imposed until a time of reformation which has now arrived with the coming of the Messiah.
\nThe point is: our High Priest functions in a better sanctuary because it is the original and not the copy, and it is in heaven and not on earth.<\/p>\n
5. A Better Sacrifice\u20149:11\u201310:18<\/p>\n
(a) The Superiority of Messiah\u2019s Sacrifice\u20149:11\u201312<\/p>\n
The author begins his fifth major comparison by showing the superiority of the Messiah\u2019s sacrifice in three ways. The first superiority is the place where it works, which is a better sanctuary (9:11). It is both greater and perfect, since it is not made with human hands, nor is it of this creation; it is not earthly, but heavenly. The second superiority is the nature of the offering in that it is a better sacrifice (9:12a). It was not animal blood, but the Messiah\u2019s blood. The third superiority is its abiding efficacy, providing a better sufficiency (9:12b) so that it only needed to be offered once. It obtained eternal security.<\/p>\n
(b) The Results of Messiah\u2019s Sacrifice\u20149:13\u201328<\/p>\n
The author mentions three main results. The first was purification (9:13\u201314), not merely outward ceremonial cleansing which was all that animal blood could do (9:13), but also the internal purification which includes the cleansing of the conscience (9:14). The second result was the ratification of the New Covenant (9:15\u201322) by which the sins of all believers are removed, both those who lived before the Messiah and those who live afterwards. The death of the Messiah provided atonement for the sins under the Mosaic Covenant and ratified the New Covenant that brings blessing instead of condemnation. The shedding of Messiah\u2019s blood was necessary because of the principle that, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. The third result is the Messiah\u2019s ministry in the heavenly tabernacle (9:23\u201328). Just as the earthly tabernacle needed the cleansing of blood, so did the heavenly, but that one required better blood (9:23). The Messiah entered into heaven (9:24) with a finished atonement once and for all (9:25\u201326a), having vanquished sin forever (9:26b) so now the believer is awaiting the expected return of this High Priest (9:27\u201328).<\/p>\n
(c) The Efficacy of the Messiah\u2019s Sacrifice\u201410:1\u201318<\/p>\n
The author begins by stating the insufficiencies of the Mosaic sacrifices (10:1\u20134). The Mosaic sacrifices could not bring perfection, which is why they had to be repeated (10:1). This very repetition shows their insufficiency, otherwise they would have ceased being offered (10:2). At best, they set forth a need and the sacrifices themselves only caused a remembrance of the sins year by year (10:3). The real problem was that it was impossible for animal blood to take away sins. The sins of the Old Testament saints were covered, but not removed.
\nThe author then points out the sufficiency of the sacrifice of the Messiah (10:5\u201310). The only acceptable sacrifice for a final atonement is one that comes with perfect obedience (10:5). The author then quotes Psalm 40:6\u20138 to show that only obedience brings perfection (10:6\u20137). Since the Messiah obeyed, He can impart perfection, and this shows that the sacrifices were never intended to be permanent. The perfect obedience of the Messiah stands in sharp contrast with the Mosaic sacrifices (10:8\u20139). God did not delight in the Mosaic sacrifices (10:8) and so He rectified the problem (10:9) by taking away the first (Mosaic) and establishing the second (New). As believers, we are now partakers of the fruits of His obedience (10:10), having experienced positional sanctification.
\nThe writer moves on to explain the efficacy of the Messiah\u2019s present work (10:11\u201314). He begins by contrasting the Levitical priest with the Messiah\u2019s present position (10:11\u201313). The contrast is sevenfold: the many priests (every priest) and the One priest (this man); they are standing, showing an unfinished work while He is sitting, showing a finished work; they sacrifice daily, but He in one day; they sacrificed many times, but He sacrificed once; they offered many sacrifices, but He offered only one sacrifice; they provided a temporary atonement, but He provided a permanent atonement; and, they covered sins, but He took the sins away. The Messiah is now seated at the right hand of God because His work is done and He has no need to repeat it. He will remain there until He rises to judge at the second coming. The result (10:14) is that His one sacrifice has perfected forever those now being sanctified because it was a better sacrifice with better blood.
\nThe theological section ends with the reaffirmation of the enactment of the New Covenant (10:15\u201318). The truth that sins would be effectively dealt with once and for all was prophesied in the Old Testament (10:15). The author quotes Jeremiah 31:33\u201334 (10:16\u201317) to prove that the New Covenant would mean no more remembrance of sin and no more conscience of sin. Under the New Covenant, there is no place left for the Levitical sacrifices, and the Jewish believer can dispense with them without any loss. The reason is that since there is now a final remission of sin, there are no more acceptable offerings for sin (10:18). The possession of remission negates any further need for an offering for sin. Since the Messiah brought perfection and complete forgiveness so that sin cannot even be remembered, what further need is there for the Levitical sacrifice? This is the last decisive word on the matter.
\nThe point is: we have a better sacrifice because it is better blood. In place of animal blood, it is the Messiah\u2019s blood.<\/p>\n
II. THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE SUPERIORITY OF THE SON IN THE LIFE OF THE BELIEVER\u201410:19\u201313:25<\/p>\n
Having shown the superiority of the Messiah to the three pillars of Judaism\u2014angels, Moses, and the Levitical Priesthood\u2014and after giving three warnings on the side, the author applies these truths to the Jewish believers to whom he is writing.<\/p>\n
A. Exhortation\u2014Warning\u2014Encouragement\u201410:19\u201339<\/p>\n
1. Exhortation\u201410:19\u201325<\/p>\n
In this section, the author gives two bases for the exhortations (10:19\u201321), followed by four exhortations (10:22\u201325). The first basis is their access to God\u2019s presence based upon the blood of the Messiah (10:19\u201320), and this summarizes the first division of Hebrews (1:1\u201310:18). The second basis is the sovereign power of our Priest (10:21) so that He could intervene in the things that we ask. The first exhortation (10:22) is an exhortation to faith. They are encouraged to approach the Throne of God with sincerity and fullness of faith, since they have access to God on the basis of having had their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (positional sanctification) and having their bodies bathed in clean water (practical sanctification). The second exhortation (10:23) is an exhortation to hope. They are next encouraged to hold fast the confession of their hope which is that Jesus is the Messiah. The third exhortation (10:24) is an exhortation to love, and they are encouraged to provoke fellow believers to love and to good works. The fourth exhortation (10:25) is not to forsake a regular assembling of themselves as fellow believers. The Greek verb for assembling is episunagogein, from which the word \u201csynagogue\u201d comes, showing the Jewish nature of both the author, the readers, and the concept. Elsewhere, the word is found only in 2 Thessalonians 2:1. This regular gathering together of believers is necessary so that they can exhort one another to do the first three exhortations. This is especially important, as ye see the day drawing nigh. This gives the fourth exhortation a sense of urgency, for the day is an expression of judgment. The fact that it is drawing nigh<\/p>\n
shows it is on the verge of dawning, and the reference is the soon coming destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, as already predicted by Jesus in Matthew 24:1\u20132 and Luke 21:20\u201324. In light of the nearness of this coming judgment, this is not a time to abandon the believing Jewish assemblies and to go back to Judaism, but it is a time to identify with Jewish believers in their public meetings.<\/p>\n
2. The Fourth Warning: The Danger of Willful Sin\u201410:26\u201331<\/p>\n
The author moves towards giving his fourth warning and begins with a principle for those who reject the truth (10:26). In light of the nearness of the coming judgment, they most be warned against willful sin on their part. Now that they have received full knowledge of the truth, if they now willfully choose to apostasize from the faith and once and for all go back into Judaism, there remains no more sacrifice for their sin. The Messiah is the final sacrifice, and if He is rejected, there is no other sacrifice for sin available. Since for the believer all sin is dealt with for eternity, the question is: what is this sin that the cross of the Messiah does not cover in time? In this context, it is a voluntary sin which a believer wills to commit after he has been saved and has been warned of the consequences. It involves a repudiation of one\u2019s previous confession of the Messiahship of Jesus.
\nWhat the sin is becomes evident by comparing verses 23\u201325 with verses 26\u201329. It involves a separation of the believer from other believers permanently and the return to Judaism, the Temple and all that it entails in order to escape persecution. The sin involves a denunciation of the three elements of verse 29: the work of the Son, the work of the Father, and the work of the Holy Spirit. For this kind of sin, there is no more sacrifice for sin, but the guilty become subject to judgment (10:27). The judgment is the only result of rejecting the only way, and there is no other sacrifice for this sin. The nature of the judgment is threefold: physical death (10:28\u201329); the A.D. 70 judgment being the time of death (10:25, 27); and the loss of rewards (10:35\u201336). The Old Testament teaches the fact of judgment (10:28). Under the Law of Moses, one was punished by physical death at the word of two or three witnesses. By the same token, physical death, not spiritual, will fall upon them as well, for punishment is greater under the Law of Christ than under the Law of Moses (10:25). The author spells out what is involved in the willful sin, and that is a rejection of the work of the Trinity. It means treading underfoot the Son of God, and this is a rejection of God the Father who declared Him to be the Son of God. It means considering the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and this is a rejection of God the Son whose blood it is, because it means to consider the blood of the Messiah no different than the blood of other men, common blood rather than better blood; and in this way implying that Jesus suffered justly for His own sins. It means doing despite unto the Spirit of grace, and this is a rejection of God the Holy Spirit. It identifies them with those guilty of the unpardonable sin: the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The reason judgment is necessary is because of the character of God (10:30\u201331). The author quotes from Deuteronomy 32:35\u201336 (10:30) to show that vengeance is the sole prerogative of God, and that God will judge His people. The author then draws his conclusion (10:31): it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. For this reason, they must heed this fourth warning.<\/p>\n
3. Encouragement\u201410:32\u201339<\/p>\n
Following the fourth warning, he now reminds them of their former courageous faith (10:32\u201334). He calls to remembrance their former days (10:32) when they first became believers and endured great suffering for their faith. There were two aspects of their sufferings (10:33). First, they suffered directly in that they bore personally oral ridicule and the loss of their property. Second, they suffered indirectly by associating themselves with other believers. The extent and nature of their suffering was also twofold (10:34): first, they had compassion on believers imprisoned for their faith; and, second, they took joyfully the spoiling of their possessions because they knew they had an eternal heavenly possession which no one could take away.
\nIn light of the past, the author encourages them to continue in patient endurance so as not to lose their rewards (10:35\u201339). The exhortation is: Cast not away therefore your boldness (10:35) on the basis of the future great recompense and rewards. Their need is to have and exercise patient endurance (10:36) and by so doing, fulfill the will of God and attain the promise of spiritual maturity. He then quotes from Habakkuk 2:3\u20134 (10:37\u201338) to prove that God will fulfill His purpose in due time, even if He seems to linger. In time of persecution, this should provide hope. The just is one who lives by faith, while the unbeliever is characterized by \u201cshrinking back.\u201d The readers are of those who live in faith and not of those who shrink back (10:39). Therefore, what they need is not more faith, but patient endurance.<\/p>\n
B. The Evidence of the Life of Faith\u201411:1\u201340<\/p>\n
Since the Old Testament saints exercised faith and patient endurance, to depart from the faith is to depart from the saints and not go towards them.<\/p>\n
1. The Endurance of Faith\u201411:1\u20133<\/p>\n
The author begins this section by describing the characteristics of faith (11:1). Faith is a principle which deals with the future and\/or the unseen. Faith is the assurance of confidence or absolute certainty of things hoped for, and it gives the guarantee or title deed of that which is still future; of things hoped for. Faith is the conviction and it gives the feeling of certainty of things present but not seen. The person of faith lives in his belief and his life is committed to what his mind and his spirit are convinced to be true. Faith assures the reality of existence in the things of the unseen world, and the believer\u2019s life is lived in the assurance of the reality of the things which are even outside the realm of the believer\u2019s experience. History proves the possibility of this (11:2), for this is the way the saints of the Old Testament lived. One example of the faith principle in action is the creation (11:3). Creation is accepted by faith in a past act not seen, and it shows that something did come out of nothing. We did not see creation, but we believe it by faith on the basis of the Word of God. This shows that faith can look backward as well as forward.<\/p>\n
2. The Examples of Faith\u201411:4\u201331<\/p>\n
Abel (11:4) manifested faith by offering a better sacrifice in that it was blood, and so witnesses that blood is still the only way. He is the example of worshipping in faith. Enoch (11:5\u20136) manifested faith through fellowship and was so well pleasing to God that he was blessed by not dying. He is the example of walking in faith. Noah (11:7) manifested faith through obedience and built an ark, though no flood or even rain had thus far occurred in human history. By so doing, he saved his entire family. He is the example of obeying in faith. Abraham (11:8\u201319) is an example of the life of faith. It was manifested in various ways: in his departure from his native land (11:8), and by becoming a foreigner (11:9\u201310) in a land he was destined to own but lived in as a stranger (11:9) while looking forward to the Heavenly Jerusalem as well (11:10). With Sarah, he showed his faith by receiving power to produce Isaac (11:11\u201312) though both were beyond the age of childbearing. They showed their faith by being willing to remain in the land as strangers, even to die there with no thought of going back to the land of their birth (11:13\u201316). Finally, Abraham manifested faith by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac (11:17\u201319), being fully convinced that if Isaac was killed, God would raise him back to life. Isaac (11:20) manifested his faith by blessing Jacob and Esau, believing that what was prophesied would come to pass. The same is true of Jacob (11:21) when he blessed the two sons of Joseph. Joseph manifested his faith (11:22) in the future Exodus by requesting that his bones be taken out of Egypt at that time and reinterred in the Land of Israel. The parents of Moses (11:23) manifested faith by hiding Moses, contrary to the law of Pharaoh, since they could see that he was a child God intended to use. Moses (11:24\u201328) showed his faith by refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh\u2019s daughter (11:24) and choosing to identify himself with the enslaved people of Israel (11:25\u201326). By faith he forsook Egypt (11:27) and by faith he kept the first Passover (11:28). By so doing, he saved the Jewish firstborn. The people manifested faith (11:29\u201330) at the beginning of the wilderness sojourn (11:29) by crossing the Red Sea and at the end of the wilderness sojourn (11:30) by circling Jericho for seven days before the city fell. Earlier in this epistle, he showed there was unbelief throughout the wilderness wanderings, but now he shows there was also faith, for God always has His remnant. Finally, Rahab (11:31) proved her faith by rejecting her own people and identifying with Israel.<\/p>\n
3. Faith in Trials\u201411:32\u201338<\/p>\n
The author has barely touched on Old Testament history, and he could have given more examples since faith extended over the whole history of Israel (11:32\u201334). Faith is associated with trials, and so persecution should not nullify faith, but strengthen it. Trials demand the exercise of faith through patient endurance. In Israel\u2019s history, faith produced national victories, personal deliverance, and personal gifts and attainments. Faith triumphs over death (11:35\u201338), though not always in the same way. God sometimes chose to save people out of the danger of death. Others He let die, and others He resurrected, for God does not always work the same way. It might very well be His will for some of these Jewish believers to suffer martyrdom. They must face it with patient endurance.<\/p>\n
4. The Victory of Faith\u201411:39\u201340<\/p>\n
The author now summarizes the whole chapter. All who are of faith will share in the future Messianic Kingdom so, therefore, we must have patient endurance until we reach the fulfillment. The fulfillment is still future (11:39), but the Old Testament saints foresaw that it would be fulfilled and died in faith. The reason it was not fulfilled in their lifetime is because of the unity of God\u2019s program (11:40), in that both Old and New Testament saints should be perfected in the Messiah and enjoy His rule together in the Messianic Kingdom.<\/p>\n
C. The Exhortation to the Endurance of Faith\u201412:1\u201329<\/p>\n
1. Faith and Discipline\u201412:1\u201311<\/p>\n
The author next deals with the relationship of faith to divine discipline, and he begins by giving two incentives to exercise patient endurance (12:1\u20132). The first incentive (12:1) is the heroes of the faith in chapter 11. The Jewish believers are now viewed as contestants striving for a prize, and the Old Testament saints are rows of spectators. They are not watching us, but are witnessing to us concerning the life of faith, encouraging us, that the race can be won. Therefore, we must lay aside every weight, the sin that besets us, in order to run the race well. The second incentive is the sufferings of the Messiah (12:2). He endured the sufferings of the cross by patient endurance; so we must look away from all distraction and look on Jesus since He is both the Author, or Beginner, and the Perfector, or Finisher, of our faith. By patient endurance He endured the cross, He conquered, and is now seated at the right hand of God.
\nThe author next moves on to show the measure of endurance (12:3\u20134) and to what extent they need to be willing to suffer. Our main example of patient endurance is the Messiah (12:3). We must meditate over each part of His sufferings which led to His death, and when we fully comprehend what He suffered, ours will seem mild by comparison. However, they should be willing to die for the faith, and thus far none among his readers have had to do so (12:4).
\nThe author now comes to the point he has been moving towards, and that is to explain the divine purpose of suffering, which is the maturity of his children (12:5\u201311). He warns them against forgetting the fact that they are sons of God, and sonship entails discipline as taught by Proverbs 3:11\u201312 which he quotes (12:5\u20136). He then applies the principle to their situation (12:7). They are being disciplined, for God is dealing with them as sons. What son is there that a father does not discipline? Their present sufferings are not punishments, but discipline for corrective measures. That is why they need to pass through it with patient endurance. If they never received divine discipline, it would show them to be illegitimate and not true sons (12:8); so they should receive this discipline in the right spirit (12:9), just as it is true with human fathers. The discipline from human fathers is sometimes imperfect, and fathers are not always right; but our Heavenly Father makes no such mistakes (12:10). Discipline is never pleasant, but if it is received in the right spirit, the divine purpose is accomplished and the believer produces the peaceable fruit from a rebellious spirit to a submissive spirit (12:11).<\/p>\n
2. Faith and the Believer\u2019s Obligation\u201412:12\u201329<\/p>\n
(a) The Obligation\u201412:12\u201317<\/p>\n
The author now deals with the obligations of the believer, followed by a warning of danger. The first obligation (12:12\u201313) is to the weaker ones in the assembly. Since discipline is necessary though painful, they need to make sure it is effectual. The stronger believers are to watch over the weaker ones and give them strength and comfort as needed. The second obligation (12:14) of the believer is to himself, in that he should be eager to pursue peace with all men and to pursue the positional sanctification by means of practical sanctification. There are dangers before the believer (12:15\u201317) that he must watch out for with constant spiritual oversight (12:15a), for there is a three-stage progression downward (12:15b\u201317), each beginning with the word lest. The first is the failure to progress: lest there be any man that falleth short of the grace of God (12:15b). This is the failure on the part of the child of God to appropriate the grace he needs to get him through the trial (4:16). Second comes positive infidelity: lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby the many be defiled (12:15c). Failure to appropriate grace will lead to bitterness, and the bitterness of the heart will lead to murmuring with the tongue. This will affect others and many will be defiled. Third comes open contempt of duty and privilege: lest there he any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one mess of meat sold his own birthright (12:16\u201317). There are two obstacles to holiness: personal impurity, and a failure to lay hold of blessings available; Esau is an example of the latter. Esau made an irrevocable decision when he sold his birthright to Jacob and lost the privilege of having the Abrahamic Covenant sustained through him and all the blessings that come with it. Now these Jewish believers are in a similar danger for they, too, might make an irrevocable decision that would cut them off from blessings and privileges available to them. Esau had neither faith nor patient endurance and so was cut off from the place of blessing. This should serve as a warning to these Jewish believers that they, too, could make one irrevocable decision which would also cause them to be cut off from the place of blessing. Going back into Judaism would be one such irrevocable decision.<\/p>\n
(b) The Believer\u2019s Position\u201412:18\u201324<\/p>\n
The author\u2019s basic point is: if the Jewish believers return to the old system, they go to a place of utter terror (12:18\u201321), and they leave, in contrast, a place of privilege and grace as exemplified by the Heavenly City (12:22\u201324).
\nNegatively, they are no longer part of a system of terror (12:18\u201321). The author emphasizes the terror that accompanied the giving of the Law of Moses (12:18\u201320) and then quotes Deuteronomy 9:19 to show that Moses felt the terror more than anyone else (12:21).
\nPositively, they are part of a system of grace (12:22\u201324), which is the Heavenly City, known here by three titles: Mount Zion, the City of the Living God, and the Heavenly Jerusalem. He then lists six occupants of the Heavenly City with no claim that it is an exhaustive list. The first are the myriads of elect angles. The second is the general assembly and church of the firstborn. This may be a reference to the Church as a whole, but the mention of firstborn probably means that this is a specific reference to Jewish believers of the first century to whom he is writing. James 1:18 refers to Jewish believers of his day as firstfruits. At any rate, they at least are representative of the whole Church. The third occupant is God the Judge of all, a reference to God the Father, picturing Him as the Judge of all men. The fourth occupants are the spirits of just men made perfect. This group is the Old Testament saints. They are spirits because they are not yet united with their bodies. They are just because they were justified and saved when they believed, and they were made perfect later, since their sins were only removed at the death of the Messiah. The fifth occupant is Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, the Son of God who ratified the New Covenant. The sixth occupant is Messiah\u2019s blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel. Abel was the first person to offer a blood sacrifice, and although he is now dead, it is a testimony that blood is still the only acceptable way to God. Now there is better blood in a better place, continually testifying the same truth to man. Many Covenant Theologians identity the Church as the New Jerusalem, but this passage makes such an identification impossible, for the Church is only one of several residents of this city.<\/p>\n
(c) The Fifth Warning: The Warning Against Indifference in Light of Better Blood in a Better Place\u201412:25\u201329<\/p>\n
In the past, Israel had rejected an earthly dispensation, but the One speaking now is from heaven (12:25). The exhortation is not to reject the One who is now speaking. If those who failed to heed him who warned them from earth did not escape physical death, neither will they who turn away from the One speaking to them from heaven. Those who reject the present voice are guilty of greater sin in light of the greatness of the Son. The issue again is physical death. The shaking of Mount Sinai was a symbol of the future final shaking of heaven and earth as prophesied by Haggai 2:6, which he quotes (12:26). This is the time between the two shakings when God is speaking quietly in grace; but He is yet to speak one more time, and the next time He comes and speaks, it will be in judgment. At that time, He will introduce an order which is unshakable (12:27), anticipating the future Messianic Kingdom. The author concludes (12:28) that since we are destined to receive a kingdom that cannot be shaken, we need to appropriate grace today by which we can see God. The reason is that the alternative is judgment (12:29). The author quotes Deuteronomy 4:24 to show that God is not only a God of grace, but also a God of judgment.<\/p>\n
D. Concluding Exhortations\u201413:1\u201325<\/p>\n
The author concludes his epistle with three categories of exhortations.<\/p>\n
1. Social Obligations\u201413:1\u20136<\/p>\n
The first category is social obligations (13:1\u20136), which includes the love of the brethren (13:1); hospitality toward strangers (13:2); sympathy toward fellow believers suffering persecutions or adversity (13:3); faithfulness in marriage (13:4); and, contentment with what one has and to be free from the love of money (13:5\u20136).<\/p>\n
2. Religious Obligations\u201413:7\u201317<\/p>\n
The second category is religious obligations (13:7\u201317), of which there are three. First (13:7), they are to remember their first rulers who earlier in their history spoke the Word of God to them. The purpose of remembering them is to evaluate the manner of their lives in order to imitate their faith. Earlier they were told to imitate Old Testament saints, but now they are also to imitate the more recent saints. The implication is that these former rulers have died, but they had finished their course and kept the faith through patient endurance.
\nThe second obligation (12:8\u201316) is that they are to give their complete allegiance to Jesus the Messiah, no matter what the cost. Jesus the Messiah must be the center of their faith (12:8\u20139), and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (13:8). This does not mean that He is unchangeable in His program, for that has changed a number of times. Nor does this mean that He is unchangeable in His person, because His personhood changed. In eternity past, He existed only in the form of God, but that changed at the incarnation when He became the God-Man. At that time, He had a mortal humanity. That changed with the resurrection when He became the immortal God-Man. He is unchangeable in His divine nature, for He never ceased or ceases to be God. In the context, His unchangeableness may also relate to the fact that He will always give spiritual victories to those who exercise faith and patient endurance. This unchangeableness is contrasted to human doctrine and teaching (13:9), which changes with the wind. These Jewish believers are to be established in the heart by grace. The heart needs to be established by grace and not by the law (by meats), for spiritual maturity comes through the teachings of the Messiah. Furthermore, the Messiah is our sin offering and our continuous supplier (13:10\u201312). He is our altar (13:10). Jewish believers have access to an altar that those in the Tabernacle or Temple have no right to because, by virtue of their continuing service in the Temple, they have not trusted the Messiah. Jewish believers have everything that Judaism has and more, since the Messiah is superior to all three pillars of Judaism. Therefore, they should once and for all give up the old. The evidence of the superiority of our present privilege (13:11) is seen in the fact that the Day of Atonement sacrifice could not be eaten by the priesthood but had to be burned outside the camp (Lev. 16:27). The adherents of the Temple are excluded from the privileges of the heavenly altar, as symbolized by the fact that neither the priest nor the people could partake of the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement. Jewish believers can, and so we have a greater privilege than the most privileged person in the Old Testament. By the same token, the place of Messiah\u2019s sacrifice was without the gate (13:12), for He died outside the city wall of Jerusalem. The author now interplays two concepts: camp and gate. The camp is the Camp of Judaism, and the gate is the Gate of Jerusalem. In order to keep the Temple adherents away from this privilege, the Messiah died outside the gate, outside Jerusalem, in order to sanctify the Jewish believers through His own blood. Since the Messiah is outside the Camp of Judaism, the Jewish believer must also go out of the Camp of Judaism to be with Him. For now, the call is to go outside the Camp of Judaism, which is a spiritual break. Later, they will also need to go outside the gate, the City of Jerusalem, which will be a physical break. Finally, the author points out that the Messiah demands our total commitment and service (13:13\u201316), and this carries two requirements. The first requirement is commitment (13:13\u201314). The Jewish believers should already be on the way out, abandoning the camp (13:13) and the city as Jesus had commanded in Luke 21:20\u201324. This is bearing his reproach, bearing His cross, identifying with His rejection. The reason we are to abandon the city (13:14) is because this is not an abiding city, and it is soon to be destroyed. However, they have the assurance of the Heavenly City, which is eternal. The second requirement is service (13:15\u201316). This means sacrifice in word (13:15), for we are now to offer up sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. It also means sacrifice of works (13:16), for they are not to forget to perform kindly deeds.
\nThe third obligation is to obey their present rulers (13:17) since they are responsible for spiritual oversight over the believers, and in the future they will have to give an account of their oversight to God.<\/p>\n
3. Personal Obligations\u201413:18\u201325<\/p>\n
The third category is personal obligations (13:18\u201325). First, the readers are to pray for the author (13:18\u201319), especially concerning the release of the writer so that he could soon join his readers. He then gives a benediction (13:20\u201321) in which he reaffirms his confidence that God can meet their needs in their present trials and in the efficacy of the New Covenant which gave them a sure standing. He then calls to mind things in the epistle calling for patient endurance (13:22) and announces Timothy\u2019s release (13:23). This should encourage the readers to pray, since for Timothy, patient endurance has paid off. Second, he then admonishes them to salute their present rulers (13:24a) and so separates the rulers from the ruled. This implies that the rulers were following sound doctrine, but many of the members were thinking of departing from the rulers to return to Judaism. The author is writing to support the rulers. He sends them greetings from Italian believers (13:24b), and then closes his epistle with: Grace be with you all. Amen (13:25). This is a plea for God to grant grace to the readers, for the appropriation of grace is what will get them through the trials. Grace is also the foundation for the new age.<\/p>\n
THE BOOK OF JAMES<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION 1:1<\/p>\n
In the English text, the author introduces himself as James, which has become his known name in that language. The Greek text reads lakobos, the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yaakov or Jacob. His actual name is the same as the famous individual of the Book of Genesis. He calls himself a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, choosing to emphasize his spiritual relationship to the Messiah rather than his physical one, for he was also the half-brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19). He was an unbeliever during the lifetime of Jesus (John 7:2\u20135), but became one when he witnessed the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7). We know he was married (1 Cor. 9:5), and he became the first pastor of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13\u201321; 21:17\u201326). He became very important in first century Messianic Jewish history, and his prominence is seen in several ways: when Peter was miraculously released from prison, he instructed his house-church to tell James (Acts 12:17); James issued the verdict of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:13\u201321); he also issued the proclamation of Gentile Christianity (Acts 15:22\u201329); Paul reported to him upon his arrival to Jerusalem (Acts 21:17\u201326); and, his name was used without permission, but effectively, by the Judaizers (Gal. 2:12).
\nThe recipients of the epistle are the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion. The term Dispersion was and is a technical Jewish term for Jews living outside the land. In the New Testament, it is also found in John 7:35 and 1 Peter 1:1. The Jews he is writing to are also believers, and this epistle is addressed to Jewish believers living outside the land. His Greek greeting, charein, is not found in any other New Testament epistle, but it is found in secular Greek literature, especially among Greek speaking Jews, which points to the Jewishness of this epistle. Elsewhere in the New Testament the word is found only in Acts 15:23\u201329, which was also penned by James.
\nThe purpose of the epistle is to strengthen the faith of Jewish believers in the face of persecution coming from the unbelieving Jewish community. His primary concern can be seen in his own statement, be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only (1:22). The concern of James is not creed, but conduct; not belief, but behavior; not doctrine, but deed. His key word and divisional statement is brethren. The expression my brethren is found in 1:2, 19; 2:1, 14; 3:1, 10; 5:12, 19. The longer form, my beloved brethren, is found in 1:16, 19; 2:5.
\nIt is considered by most New Testament scholars to be the first book of the New Testament. James, as the head of the mother church, uses an authoritative tone, and in the 108 verses comprising his book, he uses a total of 54 imperative verbs. The book helps to reveal the nature of Hebrew Christianity in the early stages of the Book of Acts before the revelations of Paul. The theme of the book is the proving of faith (1:3), and the genuineness of faith is tested in six ways: by its response to the Word of God (1:19\u201327); by its response to social distinctions (2:1\u201313); by its production of works (2:14\u201326); by its exercise of self-control (3:1\u201318); by its reaction to the world and worldliness (4:1\u20135:12); and, by resorting to prayer in all circumstances (5:13\u201318). The book ends with an appeal to restore those who may have failed in these tests (5:19\u201320).<\/p>\n
I. THE ENDURANCE OF FAITH\u20141:2\u201318<\/p>\n
The key word used in this section is peirasmos, which can be used in both a good and bad sense. In a good sense, it is used of outward trials, and in a bad sense, it is used of inward temptations. James uses it both ways.<\/p>\n
A. Outward Trials\u20141:2\u201312<\/p>\n
In this section, James uses peirasmos in the good sense of outward trials, because they demonstrate or test the strength or quality of faith. The author makes four points. The first concerns the relationship of trials and patience (1:2\u20134). The principle is to view all outward trials as a cause for joy (1:2), because testing proves the genuineness of faith, and this, in turn, produces patience (1:3). If patient endurance is allowed to have its full effect, it will, in turn, produce spiritual maturity (1:4). The second concerns the relationship of trials and wisdom (1:5\u20138). It is important that the readers recognize their need to ask God for the wisdom to make it through the trials (1:5), a request God will grant liberally. However, they must ask in faith (1:6\u20138), without doubting (1:6), because the doubter will not have his prayer answered (1:7). The doubter is a double-minded or double-souled man (1:8), a man of two minds, one set on God and one on the world, one believes God and one does not. The third point is the relationship of trials and status in life (1:9\u201311). For the low brother (1:9), his poverty is a test to see if he will glory in his spiritual wealth. For the rich brother (1:10\u201311), his prosperity is a test to see if he will glory in his humiliation, for he has to recognize his sin and need for salvation which money cannot buy. The author quotes Isaiah 40:6\u20137 to show that all wealth is destined to fade. Wealth and those who trust in it are transitory, so they must recognize the vanity of wealth as a thing not to be trusted. The fourth relationship concerns trials and reward (1:12). There is a special blessing promised to those who will endure outward trials. The present reward is inner blessedness, a joy and happiness not affected by outward circumstances. The future reward is the crown of life promised to those who love the Lord and will patiently endure.<\/p>\n
B. Inward Temptations\u20141:13\u201318<\/p>\n
In this section, James uses peirasmos in the bad sense of inward temptations, for the aim is to get the one tempted to fail under testing. The writer makes three points. First, he deals with the origin of temptation (1:13\u201315). Negatively, it cannot come from God (1:13), since God is unversed in and entirely free from evil and has no capacity to tempt man; therefore, no one can claim to be tempted of God. Positively, man is the source of this type of temptation (1:14\u201315), for each man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lusts and enticed. This lust, once it is conceived, bears sin. Sin, when it is fully grown, produces death. The sequence is: desire, conception, birth, growth, death. The order is that of three generations: lust (the sin nature) is the grandmother; sin (acts of sin) is the mother; and, death (the result of sin) is the daughter. Second, James points out the origin of that which is good (1:16\u201317). The principle is that one should not be led astray concerning the true source of inward temptation (1:16). God is the source of every good and perfect gift (1:17), for they came from the Father of lights with whom there can be no variation from His established course of action. There can be no shadow cast by turning, for God is never eclipsed and His light is unvarying, consistent, and uniform. Since there is no dimming of God\u2019s holiness, He cannot tempt men to sin. Third, the position of believers is that they are in the state of the new birth (1:18). One example of a good and perfect gift is salvation or the new birth. The readers have been brought forth by the word of truth, the gospel message, for the purpose of being a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. The expression, his creatures, refers to all believers for they are a product of His creative activity. The Jewish believers to whom he writes are the firstfruits of that entire body. As in Hebrews 12:23, Jewish believers, especially those of the first century, are the firstfruits of the Church as a whole. As firstfruits, they are also an earnest of more to come.<\/p>\n
II. THE ROLE OF GOD\u2019S WORD\u20141:19\u201327<\/p>\n
Picking up from the word of truth in 1:18, the author now elaborates on the role of the Word of God, He makes four points. First, the readers need to pay attention to the Word (1:19\u201320). What they must know (1:19) is how to be swift to hear (readiness and eagerness to hear the Word of God and to assimilate it); slow to speak (paying reverential attention to the public reading of the Word, allowing time for full apprehension); and, slow to wrath (harboring no anger or resentful feelings toward the Word or its demands). The reason is that the wrath of man hinders his attaining righteousness in conduct (1:20). Second, they must learn to receive the Word (1:21). Negatively, this requires stripping off all that is morally defiling and all spiritual wickedness. Positively, it means receiving the implanted Word with meekness so that it can do its work. Third, they must then do the Word (1:22\u201325). Receiving the Word must be followed by active obedience. The principle (1:22) is to be doers of the Word and not hearers only. The hearer only (1:23\u201324) is like one who sees his imperfections in a mirror, but walks away without doing anything about it and immediately forgets all his imperfections. The doer (1:25) looks intently and deeply to examine more minutely what the mirror shows, in order to do something about it. He looks into a perfect law, the law of liberty. The Word has the nature of law, and it is perfect because it liberates from spiritual bondage (John 8:31\u201336). It is the law of Christ which liberates us from the Law of Moses and from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2). The doer is obedient to the demands of the Word and is blessed by God in all his doings. Fourth, James makes an application to the issue of true and false religion (1:26\u201327). \u201cReligion\u201d deals with the performance of outward and ceremonial aspects of worship. Vain religion (1:26) is characterized by one who thinks himself to be a zealous and diligent observer of religious duties, yet cannot control his tongue. This shows him to be self-deceived, and his religion is vain, having no value before God or man. Pure religion (1:27) is one that is free from moral pollution and is not stained by contact with evil. It shows itself in social ethics as in visiting orphans and widows in their oppression in order to try to meet their needs.<\/p>\n
III. THE RESPECT OF PERSONS\u20142:1\u201313<\/p>\n
Picking up a thought found in 1:10\u201311, James now elaborates on the issue of social status and makes five points. First is the principle (2:1): do not compromise the faith by having respect of persons. Second, he gives an example of this sin by pointing out an incident in the synagogue (2:2\u20134). They were guilty of catering to the rich and depreciating the poor (2:2\u20133) in their assembly. The word used is sunagogeis, the Greek word for \u201csynagogue,\u201d showing again that he is writing to Jewish believers. The early Jewish believers still called their meetings by that familiar term, but they also used church (5:14). It is in their public meetings that they gave the chief seats to the rich and placed the poor in an inconspicuous place. This James declares is a sin (2:4), for it makes them guilty of social discriminations and judgments motivated by evil thoughts. Third, James describes the true state of affairs concerning the rich and the poor (2:5\u20137). For the most part, God has chosen the materially poor to become rich in the faith (2:5); not that only the poor have been chosen, for the rich are savable; nor that all the poor have been chosen, for there is no spiritual merit in poverty. All who are chosen are chosen on the basis of God\u2019s grace, but more poor than rich have been chosen. So, their attitude toward the poor contradicts God\u2019s attitude toward the poor (2:6a), because they have dishonored the poor. On the other hand, the rich (2:6b\u20137) are guilty of oppressing Jewish believers, dragging them before courts of law, and blaspheming the name of Jesus. Fourth, James declares that such actions violate the royal law (2:8\u201311). The royal law, based on Leviticus 19:18, is to love your neighbor as yourself (2:8); but if they show respect of persons, this is a sin against that royal law (2:9), and it shows them to be transgressors. There is a principle behind all this (2:10\u201311). To break one commandment of the Law of Moses was to be guilty of breaking the whole law (2:10). The reason is that every commandment of the law comes from the same God (2:11). James clearly emphasizes the unity of the law. He does not claim that one actually violates every part of the law or that all violations are equally serious. The law is a grand unity, for the same God gave all the commandments, and the entire law is stamped with the same authority, equally expressing the will of the same Lawgiver. Fifth, James concludes this section by discussing the law of liberty (2:12\u201313). He appeals to them to speak and act according to the law of liberty (2:12), because the principle of the royal law is the principle of the Law of Christ,and the latter liberates us from the Law of Moses. The basis for the appeal (2:13) is that the Law of Christ will render mercy or judgment accordingly.<\/p>\n
IV. FAITH PROVES ITSELF THROUGH WORKS\u20142:14\u201326<\/p>\n
Picking up a point he made in 1:22, James now wants to encourage them to produce the fruits of their salvation. He makes four points. First, he begins with the principle of faith and works (2:14). A faith that produces no works is not really saving faith. True saving faith will be evidenced by works. It is this section that many have assumed is contradictory to Paul\u2019s writings, but this is because of a failure to recognize the two different contexts the two were dealing with. There is a contrast between James and Paul, but there is no contradiction between the two. The contrast can be seen in five areas: First is the situation: Paul was concerned with the way of justification and was fighting legalism; James was concerned with the life of the justified and was fighting antinomianism. Second is the meaning of \u201cworks\u201d: Paul was dealing with the works of the law; James was dealing with the works of love and faith. The third concerns the place of works: Paul was against works as a means of justification or salvation; James was concerned with the need for works in the life of the one who has been justified. The fourth concerns the meaning of \u201cjustification\u201d: for Paul, it meant acquittal or legal justification, in that no man can be justified by means of works; for James, it meant vindication or the justification of one\u2019s profession, in that his claim must be demonstrated by works. Fifth, there is a difference in intention: Paul\u2019s intent was to contrast two opposing ways of salvation; James\u2019 intent was to contrast two kinds of faith, living and dead. Justification in James is not soteriological, but practical, good works. The antithesis in James is not between faith and works, but between a dead faith and a living faith. James has primarily a practical purpose rather than a doctrinal purpose. A faith that saves is a faith that produces works, and a living faith will authenticate itself in the production of works.
\nSecond, James describes what a dead faith is (2:15\u201317). He begins with an illustration (2:15\u201316) in which a wealthier brother is confronted by a poorer one. The poor one lacks clothing and daily food (2:15). The wealthy one only wishes him well without meeting his needs (2:16). So neither the speaker nor the one spoken to is profited. By way of application (2:17), the same is true with a faith that has no works: if is dead in itself and is not saving faith.
\nThird, James also describes a barren faith (2:18\u201320) by answering two possible objections. The first is the claim of one who makes a false antithesis between faith and works (2:18a) and claims that while James has works, he has faith. James refutes this objection (2:18b) by pointing out that one cannot prove he really has faith without works, because faith itself is intangible. Both men claim to have faith, but one is unable to demonstrate his faith. The second objection (2:19a) is to fall back on Deuteronomy 6:4 and claim that it is enough for one to believe God is one. But James also refutes this concept (2:19b\u201320) by reminding him that demons believe the same thing, but this only makes them shudder rather than be saved. The man\u2019s confession is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Mere belief in the existence and oneness of God is not saving faith. Faith apart from works is a barren faith, without any spiritual life, and so if is unproductive as far as salvation is concerned.
\nFourth, James gives two examples of faith proved by works (2:21\u201326). The first is that of Abraham (2:21\u201324). Abraham\u2019s faith was vindicated by his work of offering Isaac (2:21). Abraham\u2019s action in Genesis 22:1\u201318 (2:22) proved the faith he was declared to have in Genesis 15:6 (2:23). The obvious conclusion (2:24) is that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone, for works vindicate that one has saving faith. The second example is Rahab (2:25), who proved her faith by hiding the spies and sending them out another way. James draws his conclusion (2:26). Just as the body without the spirit is physically dead, faith without works is spiritually dead, because true saving faith is an active faith.<\/p>\n
V. THE CONTROL OF THE TONGUE\u20143:1\u201318<\/p>\n
Picking up on what he said in 1:19, James now develops a major work of saving faith and again makes four points. The first concerns the tongue in teaching (3:1). Because the teacher\u2019s work is performed primarily through the use of the tongue, the position of teaching allows for the greatest misuse of the tongue in spreading false teaching in the church. No one must press themselves into the role of teaching, for a teacher will receive the heavier judgment because of the position of influence. It must be an answer to a call.
\nSecond, James shows the relationship of faith and the tongue (3:2). Everyone stumbles, especially in the realm of the tongue. But if one is able to bridle the tongue, then he will be able to bridle the whole body. He who has control of his tongue has reached the goal of controlling his body and so qualifies as a teacher.
\nThird, James goes on to give a description of the tongue (3:3\u201312). The power of the tongue (3:3\u20135a) is exemplified by the horse and the bridle (3:3) in that, though the bridle is small, it can control the whole horse. It is also exemplified by the ship and the rudder (3:4) in that the rudder is small compared to the ship as a whole, and yet it controls the direction of the ship. By way of application (3:5a), like the bridle and the rudder; the tongue is small compared to the body as a whole, and yet it achieves great results over the whole life. The destructiveness of the tongue (3:5b\u20136) is exemplified by the fire (3:5b), in that one small spark can cause the destruction of a whole forest. By way of application (3:6), an uncontrolled tongue is equally destructive, and wrongly used can pollute a man\u2019s whole personality and assassinate the character of others. This destructive nature of the tongue is kindled by the fires of Gehenna. By itself, the tongue cannot be tamed (3:7\u20138). Although man has learned to tame the animal kingdom (3:7), he has not been able to tame the tongue (3:8) without supernatural help. Left to itself, the tongue is a restless evil by nature, full of deadly poison so that its impact can be deadly. Furthermore, there is an inconsistency of the tongue (3:9\u201312), for it is the source of both blessing and cursing (3:9\u201310a). Very quickly, the tongue can be used to bless God and then curse man created in the image of God. This is sin (3:10b). This type of inconsistency is unique to the tongue (3:11\u201312). No fountain produces both sweet and bitter water from the same source (3:11), and in nature it is obvious that no plant can produce something that is unnatural to it (3:12).
\nFourth, James concludes this section by showing the need for wisdom in speech life (3:13\u201318). The proof of wisdom and understanding is found in the good life and evidenced by works in the meekness of wisdom (3:13). False wisdom (3:14\u201316) is the result of an untamed tongue and produces earthly wisdom (3:14), evidenced by envy, factionalism, and lying against the truth. The source of false wisdom (3:15) is not heaven, but it is earthy, sensual, and demonic. The result of false wisdom (3:16) is confusion and moral evil; but true wisdom (3:17\u201318) is the result of a tamed tongue and is evidenced (3:17) by purity, promotion of peace, gentle respect for the feelings of others, open to reason, full of compassion and comfort, consistent and without partiality or hypocrisy. The result of true wisdom (3:18) is the fruit of righteousness so the sower can enjoy the fruit of his work.<\/p>\n
VI. THE DANGER OF FRIENDSHIP WITH THE WORLD\u20144:1\u201312<\/p>\n
Worldliness is the counterpart to spirituality, and James now discusses the believer\u2019s relationship to the world. He deals with four things. First is the evidence of worldliness (4:1\u20133). Factionalism originates in the sin nature (4:1), and the results of the sin nature (4:2a) include lust, murder, covetousness, and war. Although men go to extremes to satisfy evil desires, they remain unsatisfied. The true reason for failure (4:2b\u20133) is twofold. Some fail to receive because they fail to ask (4:2b) and do not turn to God as suggested in 1:17. Others fail because while they do ask, they ask amiss (4:3) or with wrong motives, which are their own selfish pleasures.
\nSecond, the principle (4:4\u20135) involved in this situation is spiritual adultery (4:4), because friendship with the world means to become an enemy of God. The reason is that the Spirit which He made to dwell in us yearns jealously for our total devotion and loyalty against worldliness (4:5). To harbor a rival spirit, the spirit of the world, shows unfaithfulness to the Holy Spirit who indwells us.
\nThird, James lists the obligations of the believer (4:6\u201310) of which there are seven. First, the believer must appropriate grace (4:6), a common exhortation in Hebrews. God resists the proud who think they do not need grace, but He gives grace to the humble who know they need it. The second obligation is to be subject to God (4:7a), which means to accept one\u2019s station under God. Third, we must resist Satan until he flees (4:7b), and Peter will make the same point in 1 Peter 5:8. The fourth is to draw nigh to God (4:8a), and He will draw nigh to them, resulting in worship, fellowship, and communion. Fifth, they must cleanse and purify their hands (4:8b), a call to personal purity and to avoid outward acts of sin. Sixth, they need to be repentant for their sins (4:9) expressed inwardly and outwardly. The seventh obligation is to humble themselves before God and He will exalt them (4:10).
\nFourth, he again addresses the problem of the violation of the royal law (4:11\u201312). He issues a command: do not speak out against fellow believers (4:11a) and then he gives two reasons for it. First, it violates the law (4:11b), because by speaking against a brother, he speaks against the law, the royal law of 2:8, and in turn judges the law by putting himself above it. This also means that he is not a doer of the Word. The second reason is that the only Lawgiver and Judge is God (4:12). As a Lawgiver, God makes known His will, and as a Judge He can enforce His will on those who disobey. Therefore, they must not judge their neighbor.<\/p>\n
VII. THE WARNINGS IN LIGHT OF JUDGMENT\u20144:13\u20135:6<\/p>\n
James now issues warnings to two different groups, with each warning beginning with the words, come now.<\/p>\n
A. The Warning to Jewish Believers\u20144:13\u201317<\/p>\n
James starts by pointing out their sin (4:13), in that they make full-scale, detailed plans for the future without taking God into account. These were Jewish itinerant merchants who were also believers and, therefore, they should have known better; but they were guilty of the sin of presumption. He then gives two reasons (4:14). First, they have no real or accurate knowledge of what tomorrow will bring and yet they were not living by faith which could give calm against tomorrow\u2019s insecurities. Second, life is transitory and can quickly end, so it is foolish to ignore God when life is but a vapor. Their obligation (4:15) is to seek the will of the Lord and to be sensitive to a change of plans if God so wills. This is especially true in light of the coming A.D. 70 judgment when the Jewish economy in the land will collapse with economic effects on Jewish communities outside the land. In their planning they should depend on God\u2019s will, for failure to do otherwise is to commit the sin of self glory (4:16). These Jewish believers already know better, and to them it is sin (4:17).<\/p>\n
B. The Warning to Jewish Unbelievers\u20145:1\u20136<\/p>\n
James next issues a call to the rich (5:1) outside the Church, who are the Pharisees, guilty of oppressing Jewish believers as mentioned in 2:6\u20137. They are to weep and howl, for the A.D. 70 judgment will destroy them and their wealth. What will be destroyed (5:2\u20133) will include their accumulated foodstuff (5:2a), their expensive clothing (5:2a) and their jewelry (5:3a). As it turns out, they hoarded their wealth for the judgment, for they have failed to see that they were living in the last days before the judgment of A.D. 70 (5:3b). The writer describes the conduct of the rich (5:4\u20136) which includes defrauding the poor (5:4), living in luxury and self-indulgence (5:5), and being guilty of physical violence in that they have condemned and killed Jewish believers (5:6).<\/p>\n
VIII. THE LIFE TO LEAD UNTIL THE RETURN OF THE MESSIAH\u20145:7\u201320<\/p>\n
The expectation of the Messiah\u2019s return leads to practical holiness, and James concludes his epistle by pointing out four things about how to live until then. First is the exercise of patient endurance (5:7\u201311), a pickup from 1:2\u20134. He begins with an exhortation to endurance (5:7\u20138) with the appeal (5:7a): be patient until the Lord returns. A good example of patience is the tenant farmer (5:7b) who, after planting, is dependent upon forces outside himself (rain) and so waits patiently, but expectantly. James then makes the application (5:8) that they, too, must wait patiently and expectantly for Messiah\u2019s return. Patience must also be exercised in the conduct of the tongue (5:9), and this means no murmuring against fellow believers. This is especially true since the Messiah, the Judge, may come at any moment. To encourage them, James gives two examples of patient endurance (5:10\u201311). First are the prophets (5:10\u201311a), and the second is Job (5:11b).
\nSecond, they are not to swear (5:12), in the sense of confirming a statement with an oath to support truthfulness. They need to be so trustworthy that taking an oath is unnecessary, It is a call to total honesty in speech life.
\nThird, concerning conduct in prayer (5:13\u201318), there are three special cases in which one must resort to prayer. First, in the case of suffering (5:13a), they must resort to prayer. Prayer may not remove the problem, but it is the means of appropriating grace to see them through the trial. The second case is that of joy (5:13b); he is to sing praise, expressing the inner attitude of cheerfulness and elation. Third is the case of sickness (5:14\u201316a). The sick one is to initiate the call for the elders of the church (5:14a), and it is not the responsibility of the elders to search out the sick. James now uses the more common name of the believing assembly. The sickness is a product of weakness, and it is an incapacitating sickness which makes the person incapable of working. The elders are to come to the home of the sick one (the sick one is not brought to the healer) and are to pray over the sick one, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord (5:14b); it is God and not the oil who will do the healing. The elders do the praying, as this is their primary ministry in this situation. James promises that the prayer of faith will save the sick one from his illness, and the Lord will raise him up (5:15a). James did not anticipate failure. The prayer is by the elders, and the faith is that of the elders, not the sick one. Healing is guaranteed in this specific situation. James explains next what that specific situation is. It was a sickness due to a specific sin (5:15b), and the sick one was abiding in that sin. Now he is suffering the consequences of it. That sin is now forgiven, or \u201csent away,\u201d and so is the sickness caused by that sin. However, it is important that the sick one confess his sin in order that he might be healed (5:16a). After calling in the elders of the church, he is to confess his sin to them. Afterwards, they will pray an intercessory prayer for the sick one for the purpose that he might be healed of the sickness caused by a specific sin, and the confession and praying will, in turn, lead to spiritual healing. This passage guarantees that sickness caused by a specific sin will be healed, but it does not promise the healing of sickness simply due to human frailty. James gives an example of righteous prayer (5:16b\u201318). He begins with the principle that the prayer of a righteous man is able to accomplish much in its outworking (5:16b). One such righteous man was Elijah (5:17\u201318). He first prayed negatively (5:17) for no rain, and it did not rain for three years and six months. He then prayed positively (5:18) for rain, and the drought ended. In the same way, God will answer the prayer of the elders.
\nFourth, James concludes the epistle with an appeal to restore the backslider (5:19\u201320). The problem comes when a believer in the assembly wanders away from the truth (5:19). It is the responsibility of another believer (a spiritual one according to Gal. 6:1) to convert him, that is, to turn him back to the faith and the way of truth. This is especially true if he returned to Judaism. James then gives the results of a converted backslider (5:20). The one who does the work of verse 19 and brings him back from the error of his way will accomplish two things. First, he will save a soul from death, the life of the restored sinner, for now he will no longer be in danger of the divine discipline of physical death as in 1 Corinthians 11:30. Second, he will cover a multitude of sins, that is, the backslider\u2019s sins, since they are now forgiven.<\/p>\n
THE BOOK OF FIRST PETER<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION\u20141:1\u20132<\/p>\n
The epistle opens with the author and the recipients (1:1). The author is the Apostle Peter. The recipients are the elect who are so journers of the Dispersion in \u2026 The fact that they are so journers (a Greek word used only three times and only in the Hebrew Christian epistles: 1:1; 2:11; and Heb. 11:13) shows them to be resident aliens. The fact that they are of the Dispersion (a word found elsewhere only in John 7:35 and James 1:1) shows them to be Jewish people living outside the land. This letter was written to Jewish believers living alongside a majority pagan Gentile environment in Asia Minor or modern-day Turkey. The occasion for the letter was persecution, which is mentioned in each chapter: 1:6\u20137; 2:19\u201320; 3:13\u201317; 4:12\u201319; 5:8\u201310. There are two permeating themes throughout the epistle: suffering, which is mentioned fifteen times; and, glory, which is mentioned ten times.
\nPeter gives the salutation (1:2) in which he points out that salvation is the work of the Trinity: their salvation is according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, which is the basis of their election in verse one; in sanctification of the Spirit, which was the means to bring the chosen one to the act of faith; and, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus the Messiah, which was the means by which the sin of the elect was cleansed. Man\u2019s part is obedience, which is the obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 16:26), the means of salvation. The salutation concludes with the greeting of grace (Greek greeting) and peace (Jewish greeting). This type of greeting is used only in I and II Peter and Jude, all three of which are Messianic Jewish epistles.<\/p>\n
I. THE STATUS OF THE BELIEVERS\u20141:3\u20132:10<\/p>\n
A. The Character of Their Salvation\u20141:3\u201312<\/p>\n
Their salvation has a past, present, and future aspect. Peter begins with the future aspect (1:3\u20135). This future aspect is heaven which, for the believer, is the living hope (1:3). This living hope is a product of God the Father, which the believer has because of his regeneration and on the basis of God\u2019s mercy, made possible by the resurrection of the dead. When Peter says, Blessed be the God \u2026, he uses a term found only eight times in the Greek New Testament and used only of God. This is the Greek equivalent of the Jewish \u201cBlessed be He,\u201d which follows the mention of God\u2019s name in Jewish prayers. This future living hope is the inheritance of the believer (1:4), and it has four characteristics: it is imperishable, uncontaminated by sin, permanent, and in safe deposit in heaven, to be possessed by them in due time. The future aspect of their salvation is assured because the heirs are kept safe by the power of God (1:5). It is destined to be fully revealed in the last time.
\nConcerning the present aspect of their salvation (1:6\u20139), it is subject to trials (1:6); yet their living hope can be enjoyed in the midst of suffering, for the purpose of suffering is the proving of their faith (1:7). Trials test, the character of their faith, and if it proves to be true, it will receive praise, honor, and glory at the second coming. The object of our present faith is the Messiah (1:8). While these Jewish believers have not seen Him in the past or present, yet they still believe in Him, and this results in a joy that cannot be expressed by human words. The goal of faith is salvation (1:9), and so the future aspect is already being appreciated in their experience of joy.
\nThere is also a past aspect to their salvation (1:10\u201312). The prophets all searched and sought diligently throughout the centuries the revelation of the grace of God that they are now experiencing (1:10). The prophets taught but could not reconcile two themes (1:11): the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories of the Messiah. Although the Holy Spirit indwelled the prophets, their knowledge was limited. Today, however, believers are living at a time when the two aspects can be understood (1:12), so in a real sense, the prophets did not minister to their own generation, but to this one. Now, by means of the Apostles, the announcement of the fulfillment has come and is authenticated by the witness of the Holy Spirit. Even angels desired to understand the two aspects of Messiah\u2019s work.<\/p>\n
B. The Character of the Believer\u20141:13\u201325<\/p>\n
The character of the believer is one of conformity in three different ways. The first is conformity to God the Father (1:13\u201316). This includes conforming to our hope (1:13), for now that we have new life, we should live it in light of the blessed hope which is the Messiah\u2019s return. It also includes a life of obedience (1:14) and holiness (1:16). The second is conforming to our redemption (1:17\u201321). This means we must learn to call on God as Father (1:17) since we are now the children of God. This is necessary in light of the kind of redemption we have, a redemption which was not obtained by silver or gold (1:18), but with the blood of the Messiah, the Passover Lamb of God (1:19). The redemption was from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers (1:18), a reference to Pharisaism and the traditions of the Mishnah. The Messiah was set aside for this work of redemption (1:20) from before the foundation of the world and has now done that work in history. This led to two results (1:21): for the Messiah, it meant resurrection and glorification; for them, it meant salvation with faith and hope in God. The third is conformity to love (1:22\u201325). They are commanded to love (1:22\u201323) on the basis of their new birth through the Word of God, and this is proved (1:24\u201325a) by citing Isaiah 40:6\u20138. The application (1:25b) is that the good tidings or the message of the gospel has been proclaimed to them. For all these reasons, their spiritual security, if not their physical security, is guaranteed.<\/p>\n
C. The Remnant and the Non-Remnant\u20142:1\u201310<\/p>\n
Writing to Jewish believers, Peter next makes a distinction between them and Jewish unbelievers, a distinction between the remnant and the non-remnant. He begins by dealing with the spiritual state of the remnant (2:1\u20133). The remnant must strip off (2:1) all kinds of evil conduct or wickedness, deceit, hypocrisies, envies, and the misuse of the tongue by evil speaking. In place of these things, they need to seek the spiritual milk of the Word of God (2:2). He refers to them as babes, using a word referring to an infant at birth. This shows them to be new believers, and so they need the milk of the Word in order to grow spiritually toward maturity. However, even at this stage, they have experienced that the Lord is gracious (2:3).
\nPeter then moves on to deal with the point of division between the remnant and the non-remnant as he pictures the Messiah as the stone of stumbling and the rock of offense (2:4\u201310). The Messiah is the living stone (2:4), the Messianic Stone of the Old Testament, rejected by men, but elect and precious with God. By the same token, the Jewish believers, because of the kind of salvation they now have, are also living stones (2:5a). They are living stones because they partake of the Messiah\u2019s living nature; and, they are living stones because they are part of the spiritual House of Israel, the Israel of God. The Jewish believers also comprise a holy priesthood (2:5b) to live a life of holiness which includes the details of 1:14\u201317; and, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus the Messiah. Only Jewish believers, the Remnant of Israel, have fulfilled Israel\u2019s original call of Exodus 19:6. There is a contrast between the remnant and the non-remnant (2:6\u20138). Dealing with the remnant first (2:6\u20137a), Peter quotes Isaiah 28:18 (2:6), which teaches that the Messiah is the Stone, elect and precious, and those who believe in Him will not be shamed. He then makes the application (2:7a). The Stone is indeed precious, but only for the believing remnant. Peter then deals with the non-remnant (2:7b\u20138). He quotes Psalm 118:22 (2:7b) to show that the Stone was destined to be rejected by the leaders. He quotes from Isaiah 8:14 (2:8a), who prophesied that the Messiah would become the Stone of Stumbling, a stone against which one strikes accidentally and injures himself; and a Rock of Offense, which is a trap set to trip someone causing a large boulder to fall on him. Peter then makes the application (2:8b). she non-remnant stumbled and rejected the Messiah by being disobedient to the Word. By rejecting the Messiah, they bring upon themselves injury (stone) and ruin (rock). The full impact of this came in A.D. 70. In contrast to the state of the non-remnant, the writer explains the state of the remnant (2:9\u201310). Their position in contrast to Israel as a whole (2:9a) includes four things. First, they are an elect race. Second, they are the chosen nation, both physically and spiritually. Third, they also constitute a royal priesthood as well as a holy priesthood. They are also royal because Jesus is the King-Priest after the Order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1\u201328). By the same token, believers are kings and priests. Today they function as priests, but in the Messianic Kingdom they will function as kings (Rev. 5:10, 20:6). Fourth, they are a people for God\u2019s own possession. They are a people because they are all Jewish descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they are God\u2019s own possession because they are all believers and so have been purchased by the blood of the Messiah and uniquely belong to God. The purpose (2:9b) of their unique position is to make widely known the God of their salvation, who brought them out of the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of the Shechinah Glory. Making a reference to Hosea 1:10\u20132:1 and 2:23, Peter makes the application (2:10). In the past, they were members of the non-remnant and so were not my people and had not obtained mercy. But now they are members of the remnant and so are my people and have mercy.<\/p>\n
II. THE CONDUCT OF THE BELIEVERS\u20142:11\u20134:11<\/p>\n
A. In Relation to Daily Living\u20142:11\u201312<\/p>\n
Negatively, they must abstain from fleshly lusts (2:11), and, positively, they must live godly lives among the Gentiles (2:12). Although these Gentiles might call them evil-doers, they will still see the good works of the believer and so glorify God in the day of visitation. The separation of Jewish believers from Gentile pagan practices causes Gentiles to speak against, slander, and revile them. But as many of these Gentiles further observe the good works of these slandered believers, they, too, will be led to the Messiah and glorify God at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Covenant Theologians who refuse to see the Jewish nature of the epistle and insist on applying what Peter says in 2:1\u201310 to the Church as a whole either ignore Peter\u2019s usage of the term Gentile or insist that he means \u201cunbeliever.\u201d There is simply no exegetical grounds to interpret Gentile to mean \u201cunbeliever\u201d and, in fact, the term is often used in the New Testament of those who are believers. This term most be understood in its normal meaning of one who is a non-Jew. Peter is obviously contrasting Jewish believers with the pagan Gentiles among whom they live since he is writing to Jewish believers outside the land and in the Diaspora.<\/p>\n
B. In Relationship to Government\u20142:13\u201317<\/p>\n
The key principle is one of subjection (2:13\u201314), both to the king and the king\u2019s representatives. Peter makes no exceptions to the type of government and, when this epistle was written, the empire was ruled by the autocratic Nero. However, if the government asked one to go contrary to God\u2019s law, even Peter would disobey (Acts 4:19; 5:29). The reason for submission (2:15\u201316) is threefold: it is the will of God (2:15a); by so doing, they will muzzle the ignorant who accuse them of lawlessness (2:15b); and, because they are the bond servants of God (2:16). While they have become spiritually free, this freedom cannot be used as a pretext for antinomianism. Peter concludes with a summary (2:7) containing four imperatives: honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, and honor the king.<\/p>\n
C. Concerning Servants\u20142:18\u201325<\/p>\n
The obligation of believing servants (2:18\u201320) is to submit to the masters in fear, both good and bad ones (2:18), for it is far better for conscience\u2019s sake to suffer wrongfully (2:19). It is bad to suffer for their own sins (2:20a), because then they deserve it. But if they suffer wrongfully, then they should exercise patient endurance, knowing that they are accepted by God (2:20b). To encourage them in this, Peter gives them an example of one who suffered wrongfully (2:21\u201324). The specific example is Jesus the Messiah (2:21) whom they should imitate. Jesus did not suffer for any sins He committed (2:22), yet He did not rebel against His suffering (2:23); rather, He submitted Himself to the will of God. The purpose of His suffering (2:24) was to bear our sins upon his own body and to die for them. Now believers have died to sin so that they could live righteously. Peter concludes by describing their position (2:25). With Isaiah 53 in mind, he pictures them like sheep who have gone astray, but who have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls. The sheep of Isaiah 53 were the flock of Israel, and this again emphasizes the Jewish nature of the epistle.<\/p>\n
D. Concerning Husbands and Wives\u20143:1\u20137<\/p>\n
Peter next deals with believing husbands and wives individually. Concerning wives (3:1\u20136), the obligation is one of subjection (3:1a). The purpose of subjection is to win the husband (3:1b\u20132). Subjection of the believing wife is necessary, even if the husband is not a believer (3:1b). The wife is to win the husband, not by what she says, but by what she does (3:2). This will require the believing wife to learn to balance the outward and the inward adornment (3:3\u20134). Concerning outward adornment (3:3), the emphasis must not be on hair, jewelry, or clothing. Peter does not forbid outward adornment, he only teaches that it must not be given priority. Instead, outward adornment must be coupled with inward adornment (3:4), for outward beauty is temporary and will fade with age, but inward beauty, the hidden man of the heart, is eternal. What must be given priority is the development of a meek and quiet spirit. Before God, this is a gem of great price. Peter then gives an example (3:5\u20136). The female saints of the Old Testament in general developed this (3:5) by being in subjection to their husbands, and this was especially true of Sarah (3:6) who obeyed Abraham by calling him lord (Gen. 18:12). Obedient wives are the true daughters of Sarah.
\nConcerning husbands (3:7), they must learn to do two things. First, they must learn to live with their wives in an understanding way, in accordance with knowledge. Probably having the Hebrew concept of experiential \u201cknowing,\u201d Peter is emphasizing the learning of how to sexually satisfy the wife. Second, they must honor the wife. She is the weaker vessel physically, and so must be protected. As a believer, she is a joint-heir or partaker in the grace of life. A wife must be loved into, and not forced into, subjection. The reason for honoring the wife is to keep the husband\u2019s prayers from being hindered, for God will not respond to the prayer of a husband who is not honoring his wife. The wife is a true partner in two realms. In the physical realm, this partnership produces children. In the spiritual realm, it produces answered prayer.<\/p>\n
E. Summary and Conclusion\u20143:8\u201312<\/p>\n
Before moving on, Peter now summarizes a few things. He begins by listing five characteristics one should develop in his attitude toward the brethren (3:8): unity of disposition, compassion, brotherly love, sensitivity, and humble-mindedness. This will also involve the principle of always blessing when one is cursed (3:9). Peter then quotes Psalm 34:12\u201316 (3:10\u201312) to show the reason one should render blessing for cursing, which is to love life and see good days.<\/p>\n
F. Conduct in Suffering\u20143:13\u20134:11<\/p>\n
Peter returns to the theme of suffering, since that is a major concern of his readers. He discusses this in three parts.<\/p>\n
1. Suffering for Righteousness Sake\u20143:13\u201322<\/p>\n
One must be willing to suffer for the sake of a good conscience (3:13\u201317). They need to be zealous for that which is good (3:13), for it is not natural for people to harm those who are doing good. But it does happen, so if they are suffering for the sake of righteousness, they are blessed (3:14). This refers to Isaiah 8:12, which is in a context where Isaiah makes a distinction between the remnant and the non-remnant. When they are in the midst of suffering, they most set Christ apart in their hearts (3:15a) and know Him as the Lord, and this will help them to stand firm in the face of persecution. A reference is made to Isaiah 8:13, which teaches that the remnant fears only the Lord and not the persecutors. At the same time, they must always be ready to give a verbal reasoned defense as to why they believe in the Messiahship of Jesus (3:15b), having a good conscience (3:16) that when others slander them because of their good conduct in the Messiah, their good conduct will ultimately shame the critic. Again, it is better for the sake of righteousness to suffer at the hands of sinful men than to suffer from conscience because of evil (3:17).
\nIn order to encourage them to the above actions, Peter again turns to the example of Jesus (3:18\u201322). Jesus also suffered and died undeservedly (3:18), all for the sin of others. Peter himself once objected to this concept (Matt. 16:22), but he has now learned to accept it because of the need for substitution. The Righteous One suffered and died in place of unrighteous ones, in order to bring them to God. The Messiah died a violent physical death, and He also died a spiritual death; but He was quickened in the spirit, He was made alive spiritually after suffering spiritual death. He both died spiritually and was resurrected spiritually while He was still on the cross. After Jesus died physically, His spirit descended to and had a ministry in Sheol or Hades (3:19\u201320). He preached to the spirits in prison (3:19). In His quickened human spirit he went down to Sheol or Hades. The spirits can refer to human disembodied spirits, or to angelic-demonic spirits, or to both. He then preached to them. This is not the Greek word that means \u201cto preach the gospel,\u201d but a word that means \u201cto make a public proclamation.\u201d Jesus proclaimed His triumph in His death, but this was bad news to these \u201cspirits.\u201d Peter then identifies who these spirits were (3:20a). They included the fallen angels of Genesis six, and the spirits of the human generation of Noah\u2019s day. As evidence of God\u2019s patience, for 120 years they were preached to while the ark was being built, but they were disobedient. The intermarriage of fallen angels and human women was the Satanic attempt to corrupt the Seed of the Woman of Genesis 3:15 in order to thwart the purpose of the first coming. Now that the Messiah has come and died for sin, it shows that the Satanic attempt to corrupt the Seed of the Woman has failed. This was the proclamation made to the spirits in prison. Noah\u2019s message (3:20b) was that judgment was coming, and the way of escape was the ark; but only eight were spared this judgment, and by means of the flood these eight were brought safely through in the ark into a new age. Now Peter makes the application of all this to Jewish believers (3:21). In the same way that the ark saved Noah and his family, baptism will save the Jewish believers. Baptism is the antitype to, or corresponds to, the ark, in that both provide physical salvation. Noah\u2019s message was: judgment was coming and the way of escape was the ark which saved them physically, not spiritually. Peter\u2019s message is: judgment is coming (A.D. 70), and the way of escape is also through water, the waters of baptism, which will also save them physically. Negatively, baptism will not result in putting away the filth of the flesh, putting away the sin nature, for water baptism does not save one from sin; it does not result in spiritual salvation. Positively, baptism will result in the interrogation of a good conscience before God. These were young believers (2:2) who already had salvation, but were not yet baptized, perhaps due to their knowledge that this would mean a final break from Judaism. Because this was disobedience, it resulted in a bad conscience, and baptism will also save them from a bad conscience. This cleansing of the conscience is also on the basis of the resurrection of the Messiah, for after He died physically, He was resurrected physically. Peter then concludes that the sufferings of the Messiah led to His glorification (3:22). He is now seated on the right hand of God the Father, having gone into heaven after suffering. The evidence of His glorification is the fact that all angelic beings are subject to Him. The application is that the suffering saints will also someday be glorified.<\/p>\n
2. The Responsibilities of the Believer\u20144:1\u20136<\/p>\n
In light of the example of Jesus, the believer most also be prepared to suffer (4:1), and his goal in life is to do the will of God rather than fulfill the lusts of the flesh (4:2). They are not to live according to the conduct of the Gentiles (4:3\u20136). Once again, the word Gentiles is used and must be understood in the way a Jew like Peter would use the term: it means a non-Jew. The contrast is not between believers and unbelievers, but between Jewish believers and Gentile unbelievers among whom they live. In the past (4:3), they reflected the desires of the Gentiles which was to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. This includes lasciviousness, or moral impurity, lusts of various kinds, habitual drunkenness, revellings, carousing, and idolatrous acts. Now in the present (4:4), these Gentiles think it is strange that they no longer participate and so slander them. In the future (4:5), they will be judged for it, for God is ready to judge the living and the dead, the two divisions of humanity. For this reason, the gospel was preached to those who are now dead (4:6), but they were preached to when they were alive. The purpose of the preaching is that, for the unbeliever, it makes certain his final judgment; and, for the believer, it is an encouragement to live spiritually.<\/p>\n
3. The Conduct in Light of Coming Judgment\u20144:7\u201311<\/p>\n
Peter announces that the end of all things is at hand (4:7a). Judgment was indeed very near, coming in A.D. 70. Therefore, they must do the following six things. First, they are to be of a sound, reasonable, sensible, self-controlled mind (4:7b). Second, they are to resort to prayer, in contrast to resorting to drunkenness (4:7c). Third, they are to be fervent in the love of the brethren (4:8), for love covers a multitude of sins, a point also made in James 5:20. In this context, It means that loving the brethren is to forgive their sins against us. Fourth, they are to exercise hospitality without murmuring (4:9). Fifth, they are to use their spiritual gifts for the building up of the ministry (4:10), using the speaking gifts and the serving gifts (4:11a). Sixth, the purpose is the glorification of God through Jesus the Messiah (4:11b).<\/p>\n
III. SUFFERERS ARE PARTAKERS OF THE GLORY TO COME\u20144:12\u20135:11<\/p>\n
A. Suffering: A Cause for Rejoicing\u20144:12\u201319<\/p>\n
Trials in the life of a believer are not to be considered an abnormality (4:12), because suffering means we are partakers of the Messiah\u2019s suffering (4:13). Instead, they are to rejoice, for their joy will be made full at the second coming. If they are reproached, insulted, or verbally abused for the name of Christ (4:14), it means they are blessed, because it is evidence that the Holy Spirit is resting upon them. The paradox of the spiritual life is that, in the midst of being reproached for the Messiah\u2019s sake, we can experience happiness. Again, they are not to suffer for their own wrong-doing (4:15). If they suffer for being a Christian (4:16), the proper response is not shame, a sign of moral cowardice, but to glory in this name Christian. Offer praise in this name and all that Christ and this name stands for. The term Christian is used twice elsewhere: Acts 11:26 and 26:28, both in the mouths of unbelievers. This is the only time the term is used by a believer, and it is used the same way unbelievers used it, which was negatively. The reason for the above exhortation (4:17\u201318) is the principle that judgment begins in the House of God (4:17). The suffering described in this epistle is the discipline of Jewish believers. This is an intimation of what will come to Jewish unbelievers in A.D. 70. If discipline is severe for believers, how much more it will be for unbelievers who willfully refuse to accept the truth of the gospel. If the righteous are scarcely saved (4:18), since it is not the righteous who keeps his salvation, then the unbeliever has no hope beyond the Great White Throne Judgment. Believers suffer only in time, but unbelievers will suffer in eternity. The believer\u2019s commitment (4:19) must be the willingness to suffer if it is God\u2019s will.<\/p>\n
B. The Concluding Exhortations\u20145:1\u201311<\/p>\n
1. To the Elders\u20145:1\u20134<\/p>\n
Peter begins by giving the basis of his exhortation (5:1) which is that he is a fellow-elder with them, but one who was an eyewitness of the sufferings of Christ. The exhortation is to tend, shepherd, pastor, feed, and guard the flock of God (5:2a). The flock is the local church, but it is God\u2019s church. This is the same commission Jesus gave to Peter in John 21:16. The manner by which they are to do so is sevenfold (5:2b\u20133): exercising oversight in the sense of overseeing and caring; with a non-reluctant and willing attitude; according to the will of God; not for the sake of money; but with a ready mind; not lording it over the flock as a dictator; but as examples to the flock and models to follow. These elders who rule well will be rewarded (5:4) with the Crown of Glory at the coming of the Messiah.<\/p>\n
2. To the Flock\u20145:5\u201311<\/p>\n
The flock also has obligations of which there are five (5:5\u201310). First, they must be in subjection to the elders (5:5a). Second, they must be characterized with humility (5:5b\u20136) to be evidenced by serving one another. Peter quotes Proverbs 3:34 to prove that God wants them to have the virtue of humility, and those who humble themselves, God will exalt. Third, they must learn to cast all their cares or anxieties upon God (5:7) since God cares for them. This is Peter\u2019s way of saying that they need to appropriate grace. Fourth, they must resist Satan (5:8\u20139) by recognizing the method by which he works (5:8) and resisting him with their faith (5:9). Fifth, they must recognize God\u2019s purpose (5:10), and that is that suffering will lead to glory. After suffering for awhile, they will be perfected or mature, established in the faith, strengthened or equipped for service, and settled or grounded in the faith. Peter then concludes with a doxology (5:11).<\/p>\n
C. Concluding Salutations 5:12\u201314<\/p>\n
This epistle of Peter\u2019s is being carried to the church of 1:1 by Silvanus (5:12), who was also known as Silas. He earlier carried the letter from the Jerusalem Council to the Gentile churches (Acts 15:22\u201335). In light of what is in Peter\u2019s letter, they need to stand fast in the faith of the grace of God. Peter conveys the greeting of his wife and Mark who are with him in Babylon (5:13). Many assume that Babylon is being used symbolically of Rome, but there is no need to take such a view. Babylonia would be a logical place for Peter to be. At this point in Jewish history, Babylonia had the highest concentration of Jews outside the land and was the center of Judaism outside the land. The Babylonian Talmud would later be developed there. Since Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision, it would be natural for him to go there in his travels. This also points to the strong Jewishness of the epistle. After a final salutation of love (5:14a), the epistle closes with a benediction (5:14b): of peace, or the Hebrew shalom.<\/p>\n
THE BOOK OF SECOND PETER<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION\u20141:1\u20132<\/p>\n
The author (1:1a) introduces himself by using both his Hebrew name (Simon) and his Greek name (Peter). This second epistle was written late in Peter\u2019s life, as the contents will make clear. The recipients (1:1b) are merely identified as them that have obtained a like precious faith with us. As 3:1 makes clear, this epistle was written to the same group as I Peter. Then, the audience was composed of new believers in need of milk; but now, they have matured and are ready for the meat of the Word of God. The purpose of the epistle is to further ground them in the faith and to warn them against false teachers sure to come. In the salutation (1:2), Peter uses both the Greek greeting (grace) and the Jewish greeting (peace). He wants them to gain further knowledge of God and of the Messiah.<\/p>\n
I. THE EXHORTATION TO GROW IN THE SPIRITUAL LIFE\u20141:3\u201321<\/p>\n
Just as physical maturity requires growth in the physical realm, spiritual maturity requires growth in the spiritual realm, so Peter discusses spiritual growth in four areas. First is the basis for growth (1:3\u20134), consisting of God\u2019s power (1:3) which grants us all that is needed for growth in life and godliness and God\u2019s promises (1:4) that spiritual maturity is attainable.
\nThe second concerns the process of growth (1:5\u20137), which involves the diligent adding to saving faith the seven graces of virtue, knowledge, self-control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and love.
\nThe third area concerns the necessity of growth (1:8\u201311). Spiritual growth is important for six reasons: to counter unfruitfulness (1:8a); to gain full knowledge of Jesus the Messiah (1:8b); to avoid developing spiritual blindness (1:9); to make our election sure (1:10a), for while election is by God, man\u2019s actions prove his election; to avoid stumbling into sin (1:10b); and, to receive a good position in the kingdom (1:11).
\nFourth, Peter deals with the means of growth (1:12\u201321) which is twofold. First is New Testament revelation (1:12\u201318). Peter begins this discussion by stating that he wants to remind them of apostolic teaching (1:12\u201315). These believers need to bring to remembrance what they have been taught (1:12), and this is true although they are already established in the truth. The reason (1:13\u201314) is that for as long as Peter is still living, he feels he must bring them to remembrance (1:13), because the time of his death was approaching fast (1:14). By this time, Peter was already an old man, and Jesus signified to him that he would die a martyr\u2019s death (John 21:18\u201319). The reader\u2019s obligation (1:15) is to continue to remember apostolic teaching after his death. The word for death is exodus, used elsewhere only in Luke 9:31, in the context of the Transfiguration to which Peter was an eyewitness, and in Hebrews 11:22, a Hebrew-Christian epistle. To show why this is important, Peter deals with the authority of apostolic teaching (1:16\u201318). Peter did not base his doctrine on cunningly devised fables (2:16a), a reference to the Jewish fables of the Mishnah (Titus 1:14). These are the legends of the rabbis, and the rabbis made fables the modus operandi for exegesis. On the contrary, Peter was an eyewitness of the revelation of the Shechinah Glory in the God-Man (1:16b\u201318). The glory of the King in the kingdom was revealed (1:16b), and Peter was an eyewitness of His Majesty. This was the experience of the Transfiguration (1:17) when Jesus received honor and glory, manifested as the Shechinah Glory and authenticated by God the Father Who spoke audibly from the Majestic Glory and declared: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. Peter and others were eyewitnesses of this revelation (1:18) on the Holy Mount. This is all part of the New Testament revelation, which is the first means of growth. The second means of growth is Old Testament revelation (1:19\u201321). Although being an eyewitness of the Transfiguration was a great and unique experience, Peter now teaches that the word of prophecy is a surer confirmation of God\u2019s truth than the voice from heaven (1:19). The Old Testament is more convincing than the voice, for the written Word is more valid than experience. Those Jewish believers will do well to take heed of the written Word. They live in a dark world, and the believer\u2019s only light is the light of the Word of God. The day will come when the full light of the revelation of God will shine in our hearts at the time of the second coming. For now, they must take heed to the prophetic Scriptures until the full light of the second coming dawns. Peter then concludes by discussing the source of prophecy (1:20\u201321). Negatively (1:20), no prophecy is of private disclosure, for the source of prophecy is not in man. Positively (1:21), prophecy originates with God, not man. The writers of Scripture wrote as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is the revelation of God through men by the compelling urge of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n
II. THE WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS\u20142:1\u201322<\/p>\n
Even mature believers can be led astray by false teachers, and Peter warns his readers against them by pointing out four things about false teachers. First, he issues a warning of the danger of false teachers (2:1). Just as in the past false prophets arose in Israel, by the same token false teachers will arise among the Jewish believers, and their program is to privately bring in destructive heresies. The content of their program is to deny both the person (Master) and the work (that bought them) of Jesus the Messiah. The result is that they will bring upon themselves swift destruction.
\nSecond, Peter details the deeds of the false teachers (2:2\u20133a) which include three things. First, they will affect others with immorality (2:2a). Second, they will bring discredit to the cause of the Messiah, for because of them, the way of truth will be slandered (2:2b). Third, they will make the people into a product of merchandise (2:3a), seeking to rule over them and make a profit of them.
\nThird, Peter describes the destruction of the false teachers (2:3b\u20139). The divine sentence against them will not linger or slumber (2:3b). The lesson of history teaches that God both delivers to and from judgment (2:4\u20138). There are four examples of this truth. The first example (2:4) is the angels of Genesis six, who are now chained in Tartarus awaiting their future in the Lake of Fire. They have been delivered to judgment. The second example (2:5) is the generation of Noah. That generation was delivered to judgment while Noah and the other seven members of his family were delivered from judgment. The third example (2:6) is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, showing again how God can deliver to judgment. The fourth example (2:7\u20138) is of Lot being delivered from judgment. Lot was delivered (2:7) because he was a righteous man (2:8a), and the wickedness of Sodom vexed his righteous soul (2:8b). The principle (2:9) is that God knows how to deliver the godly and how to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the Great White Throne Judgment.
\nFourth, Peter gives a lengthy description of the false teachers (2:10\u201322) and states eight things about them. First, they are guilty of lawlessness (2:10a). Second, they are arrogant (2:10b\u201311), for they rail against angels who are greater than they. Third, they have the ignorance of animals destined to be slaughtered (2:12), for they rail against things they know nothing about, and in their railings they will be destroyed. Fourth, they are characterized by licentiousness (2:13\u201314a), for they look upon each wife as a potential adulteress; for them, this sin has become a way of life. Fifth, they entice the weaker brethren (2:14b) who lack the spiritual maturity to resist them. Sixth, they are guilty of the error of Balaam (2:15\u201316), forsaking the proper way and ministering for money. Balaam at least learned a lesson from his donkey, but these will not learn anything. Seventh, they are empty of content (2:17\u201319), for they are like promising springs that produce no water (2:17a) and are destined for the eternal blackness and darkness (2:17b) of the Lake of Fire. They entice others into false doctrine by offering them the fulfillment of the lusts of the flesh (2:18). They promise freedom (2:19), but in the end they place their followers into deeper bondage. Eighth, they are, therefore, subject to the greater judgment (2:20\u201322). Their last state will be worse than the first (2:20), because by their association with the believers, they escaped the defilement of the world; but now, they return to it. It is better not to have ever known the truth than to come to know it and then turn away from it (2:21). They fulfill the proverb (2:22) that a dog returns to his vomit (Prov. 26:11) and the washed sow to the wallowing in the mire.<\/p>\n
III. THE WARNING CONCERNING THE SECOND COMING\u20143:1\u201313<\/p>\n
Peter now moves from the immediate future to the distant future to describe conditions on earth prior to the second coming.<\/p>\n
A. The Mockery of the Last Days\u20143:1\u20137<\/p>\n
Peter begins by doing what he did in the first epistle, which is to bring them to remembrance (3:1\u20132). This is his second epistle to them (3:1a), and in both epistles his purpose was to stir up to remembrance (3:1b), to remind them of things they have already been taught. The source of this knowledge is the prophets and the apostles (3:2). What they already know is that mockers are destined to come (3:3\u20134). They will come in the last days (3:3), and they will specifically mock the doctrine of the second coming (3:4). They will claim that the earth\u2019s natural cycle has continued since creation and nothing has ever interfered with this cycle. The implication is that God has never supernaturally interrupted this cycle. They are true uniformitarians and believe in the absolute uniformity of nature. Peter then issues a rebuttal (3:5\u20137). These mockers will be guilty of willful ignorance (2:5a). God has interfered with this cycle in judgment before by water (2:5b\u20136). The earth was compacted out of water (2:5b) in Genesis one and so God interfered to make this a usable planet. God later destroyed the earth by water (3:6) in the Noahic flood and so interfered again. In the future, God will interfere again with judgment, but this time by fire (3:7). The earth is being stored up for judgment of fire for the destruction of ungodly men.<\/p>\n
B. The Doctrine of the Lord\u2019s Return\u20143:8\u201313<\/p>\n
On this issue Peter discusses two things. First is God\u2019s relation to time (3:8\u20139). God is not bound by time (3:8), and so in God\u2019s timetable there is no \u201cdelay.\u201d To God a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. God and man have different perspectives on time, so that which man considers a very long time is as only one day to the eternal God; a long silence to man is but a moment to God. To God the past and future is as vivid as the present. The reason for the seeming delay (3:9) is not due to any weakness in God, but due to the long-suffering of God. God is merely extending His period of grace, wishing to give all the opportunity to be saved. The purpose of God is never delayed, and His promises will be fulfilled at the time God has ordained.
\nSecond, Peter deals with the Great Tribulation that will precede the second coming (3:10\u201313). The Day of the Lord is certain to come (3:10), being the most common term for the Tribulation, and it will come with the suddenness and unexpectedness of a thief in the night. At that time, the earth will be burned up by the judgment of fire. Contrary to the mockers, the earth is not eternal. But in light of this coming judgment, believers have a specific lifestyle to live (3:11\u201313). That lifestyle should be characterized by godly and holy living (3:11), looking forward to the Day of God or the Tribulation (3:12), because by means of the Tribulation judgments, the kingdom will be set up (3:13). Our lifestyle in this life will determine our future position in this kingdom.<\/p>\n
C. Concluding Exhortations\u20143:14\u201318<\/p>\n
As Peter concludes his epistle, he gives an exhortation to good conduct (3:14) by becoming zealous for righteousness. He then authenticates the writings of Paul (3:15\u201316). He repeats his statement that the longsuffering of God is for the salvation of man (3:15a) which Paul, in his wisdom, had also written to them (3:15b). Peter calls Paul beloved brother, showing that their rift in Galatians 2:11\u201321 has been healed. Peter then classes the epistles of Paul as Scripture (3:16), admitting that some things Paul wrote about are hard to understand, but false teachers are corrupting his writings as they do other scriptures. He then gives a final warning (3:17) to beware of false doctrine, and a final exhortation (3:18a) to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Messiah. The epistle comes to a close (3:18b) with a benediction: to him be the glory both now and for ever.<\/p>\n
THE BOOK OF JUDE<\/p>\n
INTRODUCTION\u20141\u20132<\/p>\n
In the English text the writer introduces himself as Jude (1a). The Greek text says Judas, but the name was shortened to Jude in the English translation in order to avoid connecting him with Judas Is cariot. Judas is the Greek form for the Hebrew \u201cJudah,\u201d and so he had the famous name of one of the twelve sons of Jacob. He only points to his spiritual relationship to Christ by calling himself a servant of Jesus Christ. Physically, he was the half-brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3) who was an unbeliever during the lifetime of Jesus (John 7:3\u20135), but who became a believer sometime between the resurrection and the ascension (Acts 1:14). He was the brother of James, the author of the Epistle of James, but did not class himself as an Apostle (17). He traveled with his wife (1 Cor. 9:5). Jude used apocryphal literature in those points which were true, and he refers to The Assumption of Moses (9) and the Book of Enoch (14\u201315). He heavily quotes II Peter, and where Peter used the future tense, Jude used the past tense. What Peter warned would happen, now has happened. There are a total of thirteen such quotations:<\/p>\n
1. Jude 3 2 Peter 1:5
\n2. Jude 4 2 Peter 2:1
\n3. Jude 6 2 Peter 2:4
\n4. Jude 7 2 Peter 2:6
\n5. Jude 8 2 Peter 2:10
\n6. Jude 9 2 Peter 2:11
\n7. Jude 10 2 Peter 2:12
\n8. Jude 11 2 Peter 2:15
\n9. Jude 12 2 Peter 2:13
\n10. Jude 12\u201313 2 Peter 2:17
\n11. Jude 16 2 Peter 2:18
\n12. Jude 17 2 Peter 3:2
\n13. Jude 18 2 Peter 3:3<\/p>\n
Jude also uses triads heavily in his epistles: eighteen triads in total.
\nThe recipients (1b) are obviously believers, and the strong similarity to II Peter probably means he wrote to the same body of Jewish believers as did Peter. The purpose of Jude\u2019s letter was to warn them about the arrival of false teachers, and he gives the first of his triads to show what it means to be saved: called by the Holy Spirit; beloved in God the Father; and, kept for Jesus Christ.
\nIn his salutation (2) he gives another triad: mercy, peace, love.<\/p>\n
I. THE WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS\u20143\u201316<\/p>\n
Jude begins by stating the occasion for the letter (3\u20134). His original intent (3a) was to write a letter on Soteriology and speak about the common salvation. However, now his present intent (3b\u20134) is to write a letter of exhortation (3b) to exhort them to earnestly contend for the faith, the body of apostolic teaching that has been delivered once and for all of the saints. The reason for this change of purpose (4) is that certain men have crept in privately, false teachers who are ungodly men, for the purpose of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and to deny their only Master and Lord, Jesus the Messiah. Their condemnation has already been decreed by God.
\nJude then goes on to discuss the false teachers at length (5\u201316) and points out four things about them. First, there is the lesson of history (5\u20137) that God will judge sin. The readers are to bring to remembrance (5a) three examples. The first example is the wilderness wanderings (5b). God saved a people out of Egypt, but then destroyed the unbelievers. The second example is the angels of Genesis six (6). These angels did not keep their own principality by remaining in the angelic sphere, but left their proper habitation of the heavenly abode by intermarrying with human women. These are now kept in everlasting bonds, never to roam free again, being chained in Tartarus according to 2 Peter 2:4; and there they will be until the judgment of the Great White Throne. The third example is that of Sodom and Gomorrah (7). The men of this city, like the angels of verse six, gave themselves over to fornication and so both groups were guilty of sexual immorality. Both groups went after strange flesh, flesh of a different kind, sexual relationships that went contrary to nature. For the angels of Genesis six, the \u201cstrange flesh\u201d was human women. For Sodom and Gomorrah, it was homosexuality. These are all examples of God\u2019s judgment of sin.
\nSecond, Jude discusses the deeds of the false teachers (8\u201310) of which there are four. First, they defile the flesh (8a) and are guilty of many acts of sin. Second, they are lawless (8b) and so set at nought dominion. Third, they rail against beings greater than they (8c\u20139). By railing against greater beings than they (8c), they fail to follow the example of Michael (9). After Moses died, a dispute broke out between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses. Although Michael is a holy angel and Satan is a fallen being, positionally Satan is greater than Michael; Michael is the Archangel, but Satan is the Anointed Cherub. Michael did not rail against someone greater than he, but committed the situation to the Lord. Fourth (10), these rail against things they know nothing about, and what they do understand naturally will eventually destroy them.
\nThe third thing Jude deals with is the status of false teachers (11\u201313). They are like the sinners of the Old Testament (11), for they follow the way of Cain who insisted on his own way and not God\u2019s; they commit the error of Balaam, intent only on gaining reward; and, they repeat the gainsaying of Korah, who rejected God\u2019s mediators of Moses and Aaron. Jude then makes seven similitudes (12\u201313) in his description of the false teachers: they are like rocks just below the surface of the water and so cause wrecks; like clouds without water, producing a false hope; like spots or small stones in their agapei feasts breaking the teeth of those who bite into them; like shepherds who only feed themselves; like autumn trees without fruit, and so twice dead because they did not produce in the spring and are still barren in the fall; like wild waves of the sea, always restless and untamed and without peace; and, like wandering stars or fallen angels, for whom the blackness of darkness of the Lake of Fire is reserved forever.
\nFourth, Jude concludes with the judgment of false teachers (14\u201316). He quotes the prophecy of Enoch (14\u201315) that the Lord is coming with myriads of his saints (14) for the purpose of executing judgment upon all (15), for their works and words. The judgment (16) of their words will include their murmuring and complaining. The judgment of their works will be for walking in their own ungodly lusts and showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage.<\/p>\n
II. THE WARNING AGAINST SCOFFERS\u201417\u201319<\/p>\n
Like Peter, Jude moves from the present time (Peter\u2019s immediate future) to the distant future to bring to remembrance what they had been told by the Apostles (17), that in the last days, mockers will come (18) walking after their own ungodly lusts. By their deeds (19), they will cause schisms. They are natural men without the Spirit of God.<\/p>\n
III. THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE BELIEVER\u201420\u201323<\/p>\n
In light of the above, the believer has certain obligations in two realms.
\nFirst, he has an obligation to himself (20\u201321), which is to grow in God, and this will involve four things: faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keeping oneself in the love of God; and, the blessed hope looking for the return of Jesus the Messiah.
\nSecond, there is the obligation to others, which is to minister to fellow believers (22\u201323) in three ways. First, on some, to have mercy on those who doubt (22). These are the ones who are weak in the faith and so have honest questions and are not trying to destroy the faith. On these, one must have compassion and tenderness and extend mercy to those who may have leanings toward such things as taught by the apostates. Second, save some (23a), using boldness to snatch them from the fire. These are the ones who are fully involved in apostasy and so may be unsaved men. We are to be instrumental in saving men from apostasy. Third, on some, have mercy with fear (23b), using extreme caution, being careful not to be contaminated by their sin.<\/p>\n
BENEDICTION\u201424\u201325<\/p>\n
As he closes his epistle, Jude makes two points about God: what God can do (24) and who God is (25).<\/p>\n
BIBLIOGRAPHY<\/p>\n
BOOKS<\/p>\n
Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1945; reprint ed., 1974.
\nArndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
\nBaker, Charles F. A Dispensational Theology. Grand Rapids: Grace Bible College Publications, 1971.
\nBancroft, Emery H. Elemental Theology: Doctrinal and Conservative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1945.
\nBarndollar, W.W. The Validity of Dispensationalism. Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1964.
\nBarnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament: Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949.
\nBaron, David. The Ancient Scriptures for the Modern Jew. London: Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel, n.d.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Israel\u2019s Inalienable Possessions. New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1943.
\nBarrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. New York: Harper & Roe, Publishers, 1957.
\nBass, Clarence B. Backgrounds to Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.
\nBaughman, Ray E. The Kingdom of God Visualized. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.
\nBauman, Louis. The Time of Jacob\u2019s Trouble. Long Beach, CA: By the Author, 1939.
\nBaur, Benjamin. How Has God Honored the Jews? Rochester: What the Bible Says, n.d.
\nBerdyaev, Nicholas. The Meaning of History. London: Geoffrey Bles, Centenary Press, 1936.
\nBerkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1933.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950; reprint ed., 1958.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939.
\nBlackstone, William E. Jesus is Coming,. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1932.
\nBoettner, Loraine. The Millennium. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1957.
\nBoyer, James L. Prophecy: Things to Come. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1973.
\nBradbury, John W., ed. Light for the World\u2019s Darkness. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1944.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014., ed. The Sure Word of Prophecy. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1943\u201344.
\nBrown, Francis; Driver, S. R.; and Briggs, Charles A. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.
\nBruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.
\nBuswell, J. Oliver. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
\nCalvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, n.d.
\nCarson, D. A., ed. From Sabbath to Lord\u2019s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.
\nChafer, Lewis Sperry. Dispensationalism. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1936.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Grace. Grand Rapids: Dunham Publishing Co., 1922.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Kingdom in History and Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Dunham Publishing Co., 1943.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Major Bible Themes. Findlay, OH: Dunham Publishing Co., 1953.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Major Bible Themes. Revised by John F. Walvoord. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.
\nClouse, Robert G., ed. The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977.
\nCohn, Joseph Hoffman, et al. Prophecy Speaks. New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1948.
\nCollins, George N. M. \u201cCovenant Theology.\u201d In Baker\u2019s Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.
\nCooper, David L. Israel\u2019s Place in the Plan of God. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1959.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Messiah: His Final Call to Israel. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1962.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Messiah: His Glorious Appearance Imminent. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1961.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Messiah: His Historical Appearance. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1958.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Shepherd of Israel Seeking His Own. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1962.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. What Men Must Believe. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1953.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The World\u2019s Greatest Library Graphically Illustrated. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1942.
\nCox, William E. Amillennialism Today. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1966.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Biblical Studies in Final Things. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1966; reprint ed., 1975.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. An Examination of Dispensationalism. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1963; reprint ed., 1977.
\nCrenshaw, Curtis I. and Gunn, Grover. Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow. Memphis: Footstool Publications, n.d.
\nDaane, James. The Anatomy of Anti-Semitism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965.
\nDeCaro, Louis A. Israel Today: Fulfillment of Prophecy? Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.
\nDehaan, M. R. Who Owns Palestine? Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, n.d.
\nDehaan, Richard W. Israel and God. Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, 1969.
\nDeRidder, Richard R. Discipling the Nations. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971 and 1985.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. My Heart\u2019s Desire for Israel. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.
\nDimont, Max I. Jews, God, and History. New York: New American Library, Inc., 1962.
\nEdersheim, Alfred. Bible History. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1890.
\nEhlert, Arnold D. A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.
\nEllison, H. L. The Mystery of Israel. London: Paternoster Press, 1966; reprint ed., 1968.
\nErickson, Millard J. Contemporary Options in Eschatology: A Study of the Millennium. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.
\nEvans, Robert L. The Jew in the Plan of God. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1950.
\nFeinberg, Charles Lee. The Curse of Anti-Semitism. Altadena, CA: Emeth Publications, n.d.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Israel: At the Center of History & Revelation. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Israel in the Spotlight. New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1964.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Millennialism: The Two Major Views. Chicago: Moody Press, 1936; reprint ed., 1980.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Premillennialism or Amilliennialism? New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, 1961.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Sabbath and The Lord\u2019s Day. New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, n.d.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014., ed. Focus on Prophecy. Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1964.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014., ed. Jesus the King is Coming. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014., ed. Prophecy and the Seventies. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014., ed. Prophetic Truth Unfolding Today. Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1968.
\nFruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, 1982.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Hebrew Christian Passover Haggadah. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Beth Sar Shalom Hebrew Christian Fellowship, 1970; revised ed., Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, 1990; and, A Passover Haggadah for Jewish Believers. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, 1991.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Hebrew Christianity: Its Theology, History and Philosophy. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, 1983.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Jesus Was a Jew. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Press, 1981; revised ed., 1989.
\nFuller, Daniel P. Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.
\nGartenhaus, Jacob. Christ-Killers: Past and Present. Chattanooga: Hebrew Christian Press, 1975.
\nGodet, F. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.
\nGoldberg, Louis A. Leviticus: A Study Guide Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.
\nGood, Carter V. and Scates, Douglas E. Methods of Research: Educational, Psychological, Sociological. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1954.
\nGoodwin, Lloyd. Prophecy Concerning Israel and the Church. Des Moines: Gospel Assembly Church, 1975.
\nGundry, Robert H. The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973.
\nHaynie, Burl. Time of Jacob\u2019s Trouble Approaching: Israel\u2014God\u2019s Timepiece. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1965.
\nHendriksen, William. The Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1932; revised ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Israel in Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.
\nHenry, Carl F. H., ed. Basic Christian Doctrines. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1962.
\nHodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1886; reprint ed., 1950.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. London: James Clarke & Co., 1960.
\nHoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979; revised ed., 1982.
\nHoyt, Herman A. The First Christian Theology: Studies in Romans. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1977.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Gospel\u2014God\u2019s Way in Saving Men. Winona Lake, IN: Brethren Missionary Herald Co., n.d.
\nHulse, Erroll. The Restoration of Israel. London: Henry E. Walter, 1968.
\nIronside, H.A. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.
\nJocz, Jakob. The Jewish People and Jesus Christ: A Study in the Controversy Between Church and Synagogue. London: S. P. C. K., 1954.
\nJuster, Daniel. Jewish Roots. Rockville, MD: DAVAR Publishing Co., 1986.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. and Eisen, Gloria. Passover Haggadah for Followers of Yeshua the Messiah. Washington, D.C.: Messianic Vision, n.d.
\nKac, Arthur W. The Death and Resurrection of Israel: A Message of Hope for a Time of Trouble. Baltimore: King Brothers, 1969.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Rebirth of the State of Israel: Is it of God or of Man? Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Spiritual Dilemma of the Jewish People: Its Cause and Cure. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.
\nKik, J. Marcellus. An Eschatology of Victory. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1975.
\nKligerman, Aaron J. The Gospel and the Jew. Baltimore: King Brothers, 1969.
\nKoch, Kurt. The Coming One. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1972.
\nLadd, George Eldon. The Blessed Hope. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Gospel of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Last Things: An Eschatology for Laymen. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Presence of the Future. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.
\nLaSor, William Sanford. Israel: A Biblical View. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976.
\nLindberg, Milton B. The Jew and Modern Israel in the Light of Prophecy. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.
\nLoetscher, Lefferts A., ed. Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1955.
\nLudwigson, R. A Survey of Bible Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
the Church, but it is \u201cthe place of privilege\u201d or the place of blessing. Israel was \u201cthe first definite group to be called to this place, but because of unbelief she was set aside or broken off.\u201d Now it is the Gentiles who are in this place of blessing. However, \u201cit is perfectly clear that … <\/p>\n