Another reason why I’ve come to reject Dispensationalism:
Dispensationalists teach that God has a distinct program for Israel and a distinct program for the church. (The Moody Handbook of Theology, p. 555)
For Dispensationalists to insistent on “a distinct program for Israel and a distinct program for the church” is a failure to see Jesus as the New Israel:
Israel in OT Jesus in NT
As God’s Firstborn Son (Exod. 4:22) As God’s Firstborn (Heb. 1:6)
In Egypt and the Exodus (Hos. 11:1) In Egypt and out of (Matt. 2:13-23)
40 years in Wilderness (Deut. 8:1-5) 40 days in Wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11)
Temple and Priesthood As Temple and Priesthood (Heb. 5-10)
Exile and Restoration (Ezek 37) Death and Resurrection (Matt. 28)
and so on…
Besides, the apostle Paul knows nothing of “a distinct program for Israel and a distinct program for the church”:
15 The Jewish law had many commands and rules, but Christ ended that law. His purpose was to make the two groups of people become one new people in him and in this way make peace.16 It was also Christ’s purpose to end the hatred between the two groups, to make them into one body, and to bring them back to God. Christ did all this with his death on the cross. (Eph. 2:15-16, NCV)
To insist on “a distinct program for Israel and a distinct program for the church” is to set aside Jesus as the New Israel and the Church as the New Humanity of both Jews and Gentiles.
Another reason why I’ve moved into the Historic Premillennialism camp…
- Related posts: The Rapture could be a Bad Idea; see Elshaddai here and Brian here.
- NT Wright’s The Challenge of Jesus is a great place to explore “Jesus as the New Israel.”
TC, you and I are in similar camps because I’ve given up on the rapture idea and also find myself moving further from dispensationalism all the time. But I still have a hard time giving up on current day Israel being that blessed nation of God. My fear in totally giving up on Israel comes from an underlying fear of playing into the idea of questioning Israel’s right to exist.
I think many (not you of course) often ignore the privilege we have.
This is chopped up from Rom. 11. I’m not sure if it helps your topic but it came to mind after reading your post for whatever reason.
Pingback: Are you a 4-point American Evangelical?
Kevin, doing theology, which includes eschatology, is a journey, so changes here and there are expected.
Per my reading of Romans 11, I still believe God has plans for ethnic Israel, but not those of Dispensationalism.
Bryon, Romans 11 becomes appropriate since God still has ethnic Israel in mind but in a salvific way.
I agree with you, tc, about there not being 2 distinct programs, but I’ve never been able to shake that Acts 15 creates maybe 2 categories within the overall program???
Peter, read v.15 of Acts 15 closely. The conversion of the Gentiles into the New Humanity, the church, came as a fulfillment of Amos’s words. That’s what James is saying.
But I do believe God is going to reach out in a specular salvific way to ethnic Israel in times to come, per my reading of Romans 11.
TC, your statement “Jesus has become the New Israel” should, in time, cause you to drop your premillennialism. Think of it in this way, the doctrine of the millennium in no way rests upon the OT, all of promises God made to Israel have been fulfilled in Christ. There is also no hint whatsoever of a thousand year reign in anything James, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Paul or Peter said and nothing they say implies such a view nor do the Gospel and epistles John wrote. Rather the only hint of a thousand year reign is found in an apolcalyptic vision of John. On the balance of evidence then one should really look again at whether a physical literal thousand year reign of the Messiah from Jerusalem is actually there in the text. Ignore for a second that Rev. 20 mentions a 1000 yrs and think instead of what isn’t there…then look at the texts premillennialists refer to, they are OT prophesy that concern Israel but then of course we know that Jesus has become the New Israel and so the temple is his Body, the Land is the new earth etc…
Seeing Christ as the new Israel was a major step for me becoming one of those pesky amillenialists. Great post, TC.
Pingback: On the book of Revelation « συνεσταύρωμαι: living the crucified life
TC-
I’d rather say that Jesus is the true Israel than the new Israel. The reason why is because of the identification of the Israelite remnant at the time Jesus came. Ladd designates them not a new Israel, but the true Israel, that is, the Israelite remnant through whom God had been working all along. Granted, Jesus did something new with them (new wineskins), but designating them the true Israel denotes continuity. Saying they are the new Israel would equate to some form of dispensationalism, just moving it back from Pentecost to John the Baptist. Even though the preaching of the kingdom began with John the Baptist, he still stood as the last OT prophet.
Now, what’s the point with Jesus? The idea of concomitance is laid out in Hebrews 2:10-15. What is taught is that Jesus (the sancitifier) and the church (the sanctified) are essentially one from God’s point of view. If we say that Jesus is the new Israel, then the church is the new Israel.
If Jesus is the true Israel, He has been there all along from old, even from everlasting. Then also the church is the true Israel incorporating both Gentile inclusion and Israelite distinction meaning a future plan for Israel.
So in short, I see the term New Israel leading to supersessionism. The term True Israel allows for a future plan for Israel after the flesh.
Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13
-The Orange Mailman
Orange Mailman, I’m with you all the way in how we understand Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah and his significance to the Jewish people and to all people in eschatological terms.
But “New” vs “True” might just come down to semantics in this context: How should we understand “New” as it applies to the “new” heavens and the “new earth,” continuity or discontinuity? or both?
What an exciting post/series! I see you and your posts as coming from a fellow truth lover. I recall a radio program that really highlighted some of the points you are expressing. Perhaps you would be interested in checking it out. You can find it posted on internet radio and other AM/FM/Satellite outlets at http://www.tsiyon.org. The current program explores the historical thought of pre-Messiah Jewish thinking as demonstrated in the Isaiah Targum regarding the divinity of Messiah. The programs specifically that mention dispensational thinking are interwoven from #1 and #2 (June, 2006 in the archives) and move forward throughout all of the programs. The current most programs are free, the older programs have a small fee associated to access the archives. Blessings to you in your pursuit of HIS truth.
Zarach thanks. I see that you’re doing a bit of advertising here. No probs. Just send me bit.
wo books I’d gladly recommend are Cornelis P. Venema’s The Promise of the Future, published by the Banner of Truth and The Millenium by Loraine Boettner.
The Banner put out an abridgement of Venema’s book called Christ and the Future which I have as well…
Douglas, thanks. But I still have a hard time getting away from a millennial reign, and the arguments of Amillennialists are not convincing enough for me.
Hey TC, thanks for the reply. To answer the question, I’d say progressive continuity. I know, I just shot myself in the foot. But I think the situation is slightly different. Jesus and disciples did not form some new group separate from anything else. They taught at synagogues, they went to the temple, they were trying to prompt all Israel to repent. Here’s a quote from Ladd who puts it better than anybody (I’m sure you are aware.)
“The disciples constituted not a new Israel but the true Israel, not a new church but the true people of God; the righteous nation that keeps faith; the true qahal Jahweh who have been summoned by Jesus into the blessings of the messianic fulfillment.”
“Jesus came to bring to Israel the promised messianic fulfillment. He offered the promised salvation to Israel not because Israel had a claim upon the Kingdom but because God had a claim on Israel. Acceptance of the Kingdom of God would have meant the realization of the true destiny and the divine purpose in the call of Israel. This purpose was fulfilled only in those who responded to God’s call. These constituted neither a new Israel nor a separate synagogue nor a closed fellowship nor an organized church, but the believing remnant within the unbelieving nation, the ecclesiola in ecclesia. They were in a twofold sense an eschatological community; they had received the present Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus and were therefore destined to inherit the Kingdom in its eschatological consummation. Their only common bond was their relationship to Jesus and their participation in the blessings of the Kingdom resident in him.”
Like you say, TC, it may come down to semantics. But if we lay a foundation leaning toward a certain direction or position, what will happen when we build on that foundation? I think Ladd knew and that’s why he chose his words the way he did. Anyway….
Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13
-The Orange Mailman
Excellent post, TC!
Amen!!
If only more people would see it so clearly!
Polycarp, thanks for the encouragement.
Armen, easier said that done. I was former…
modern day Israel is really just a political thing than anything else anymore…
yes, ethnic Israel and not necessarily Poltical Israel – though I wonder since the Cross, isn’t it mainly a spiritual Israel now – weren’t the ethinic and spiritual lines blurred at the cross?
why should even be a “program” at all? I though God wasn’t into “programs”?
Brian, well, after the Cross we have Romans 11, which is undoubtedly pointing to ethnic Israel.
TC:
Have you read John Calvin’s (and Wright’s, for that matter) take on Romans 11?
Richard, you’ve given me some things to chew on. I find myself reflecting on Jesus as the New Israel in eschatological terms, esp. with the help of NT Wright.
I’m rethinking Revelation 20 on the issue.
Neither am I satisfied with Amillennialists explanation of the 1000yr reign. They’ve got to do better than a spiritualize reign during the church age.
For now I’ll err in the Historic Premillennial camp.
Douglas, Who helped you in your discovery?
The gospels stress continuity with God’s existing covenant with Israel – and so therefore I think ‘true’ rather than ‘new’ is more apt.
TC, encouraging news
Have you read Riddlebarger yet? He has a good little essay here.
Richard, thanks for the link.
Chris E, I’ve come to agree with “True” vs “New,” but on some levels is just about semantics.
Two books I’d gladly recommend are Cornelis P. Venema’s The Promise of the Future, published by the Banner of Truth and The Millenium by Loraine Boettner.
The Banner put out an abridgement of Venema’s book called Christ and the Future which I have as well…
Orange Mailman, you’ve made a great case, citing Ladd once again, why “True” is to be preferred over “New.”
And I shall embrace “True” instead of “New” in this context.