|
Question:
Thank
you for your careful answer to my question about Israel and the
church. I agree with the first part of your answer: the O.T. reveals
that
Gentiles as well as Jews will be saved. I have a different understanding
of
the references you gave in support of the N.T. church and the nation of
Israel being the same body. I think our difference is due to
hermeneutics.
We seem to have a different principle of interpretation for prophetic
statements, but the same principle for all other statements. From this
we
arrive at two different ways of structuring scripture (two systematic
theologies). One sees God's people Israel and God's people the church as
an
amalgamation. The church has now replaced Israel in God's plan for his
people in history and prophecy. There is no future for national Israel
as a
distinct entity in God's plan other than the fact that many Jews will
come
to faith in the last days. I believe that a consistent normal
(literal) interpretation of Scripture ---applied to prophetic passages
as
well as all others---leads to national Israel and the church remaining
two
distinct entities----all the way to the end of the age. For example: God
the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are One in
essence....Deity.
But the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father and neither are
the
Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons. Likewise, Israel is not
the
Church , the Church is not Israel, and neither is the same as righteous
Gentiles. All true believers in these groups are the people of God and
have
a distinct role in history and prophecy. Now for an attempted response
to
your answers . I had better pick just one for now :) #2. When James
quotes Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-17, he is shifting the discussion of
the
conversion of Gentiles from a proselyte model to an eschatological one.
Isaiah had written that Gentile converts would come to Jerusalem to
learn
God's ways so that they might walk in them. But Isaiah also spoke of the
Gentiles' persistence as nations whose salvation did not destroy their
national identities (Isa. 2:4; 25:6-7). Amos also spoke of "the
remnant of
men" in the last days when "David's fallen tent would be
rebuilt" as being
"all the Gentiles who bear my name" and whose continuance as
Gentiles was
understood. James is saying that in the end times, God's people will
consist
of two concentric but distinct groups. At their core will be restored
Israel
(David's rebuilt tent) ; gathered around them will be a group of
Gentiles
(the remnant of men) who will share in the Messianic blessings but will
persist as Gentiles without becoming Jewish proselytes. It is this
understanding of Amos's message, James insisted, that Peter's testimony
has
affirmed---the result being that the conversion of Gentiles in the last
days
should be seen---not as proselytizing but in an eschatological context.
If James' quoting of Amos is meant to say that National Israel (David's
tent) and the N. T. Church have become one and the same entity, then one
might assume that "what circumcision meant under the old
dispensation, that
and no less, is the meaning of baptism for those living in the new
age."
(quoting W. F. Flemington) It is significant that James made no mention
at the council of baptism superseding circumcision---something that, had
he
advocated it, would have forever silenced the Jewish-Christian critics
of
Gentile salvation. Nor does Paul either in Galatians or Romans, where it
might have been expected, make and such mention. Moreover, had Paul
believed that baptism superseded circumcision, his circumcision to
Timothy
would have been nonsense. (Acts 16:3) The following statements also
ring true to me:
1. Jesus Christ is the only final physical seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16,
19).
2. Only those "of faith" are the seed of Abraham through their
faith
relationship to Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:14, 26-29; Rom. 4), not the
offspring
of believers.
3. The new covenant of Jesus Christ is defined as including regenerate
forgiven members alone, not believers and their children (Heb. 8:8-12 ).
4. Infant baptism is based by inference on a final Old Testament
authority
over the New Testament.
5. Infant baptism violates the regulative principle of worship which
maintains that ordinances must be instituted be revelation, not by
inference
from the Old Testament. The baptism of disciples alone is the only
instituted baptism of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Matthew
28:l9-20).
Further, Exodus l2 reveals that the household children partook of the
Passover meal. If baptism is a continuation of circumcision and the
Lord's
Supper is a continuation of the Passover, then shouldn't children be
allowed
to take communion from their earliest years? The N.T. requires partakers
of
the Lord's Supper to examine themselves first (1 Con. 11).The N.T. also
requires baptismal candidates to repent first. If one is hermeneutically
consistent, then one must accept both pedobaptism and pedocommunion, or
one
can accept neither.
Back to the Acts l5 and Amos 9 question:
It would be possible to say the rebuilt house of David is the church
which
God is using to preach to the Gentiles----but for these facts:
1. The verb "return" used in Acts l5:16 means an actual
return. Luke uses it
only one other time in 5:22 ('went back") .(He did not use it in
his
gospel.) Both times it describes a literal, bodily return. Since God's
Son
has not yet returned bodily, this rebuilding has not taken place.
2. Christ's present ministry in heaven is not associated with the
Davidic
throne elsewhere in the N.T. He is now seated at the right hand of God
the
Father. (Ps. 110:1, Rom. 8:34, Col. 3:1, Heb. 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2,
1Peter
3:22). When He returns to sit on David's throne (2 Sam. 7:16; Ps. 89:4;
Mt.
19:28; 25:31). The Church was a "mystery" ---a truth not
revealed to the
O.T. saints (Rom. l6:25; Eph. 3:5-6; Col. 1:24-27);
Because of all of the above reasons (and more which I won't list because
this is so long) I do not think the N.T. Church is referenced in Amos as
the
same entity as Israel.
One more point:) James used "after this" to begin verse 15.
Amos 9:11
begins "in that day". James is saying that Gentiles will be
saved in the
Kingdom Age (Millennium) when Christ will return and "rebuild
David's fallen
tent"---restore the nation Israel.. Amos said nothing about
Gentiles needing
to be circumcised. If Gentiles will be saved in the Kingdom Age, why
should
they become Jewish proselytes by circumcision in the Church Age? This
fits
the meaning of "in that day". After the Tribulation (Amos
9:8-10), God will
establish the messianic kingdom (Amos 9:11-12). James in Acts l5:16
interprets "in that day" to mean that "at the time
when" God does one the
Tribulation) He will then do the other. In that sense James could say
"
After this" (which is neither in the Massoretic text nor the
Septuagint;
both have "in that day".) This interpretation gives
significance to the word
"first" in verse 14. Cornelius and his household were among
the first
Gentiles to become members of Christ's body, the church. Gentile
salvation
will culminate in great blessing for them in the Kingdom Age (Rom.
11:l1). A
number of prophets predicted Gentile salvation in the Millennium, as
James
stated in Acts l5:15 (Isa. 42:6; 60:3; Mal. 1:11).
I must stop now. Sorry to be so lengthy. Knowing you don't agree with my
interpretation, do you agree the basic reason for our disagreement is
hermeneutical? Thanks for your patience.
|
Answer:
Dear Little Orly,
I thank you again for you questions and comments, as well as the manner
in
which you handle the differences. The biblical and theological
discussion
is wonderful and the discussion of hermeneutics is helpful as well, for
the
framework with which one views Scripture is vitally important, and even
this
framework must be taken, compared, and consistently examined to see if
it
too is biblical, for as reformed doctrine teaches - Scripture (under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit) is the best interpreter of Scripture!
Hopefully, this response will address your questions:
1. The Bible does NOT state that the church and National Israel are the
same. (If I scanned your message correctly, we AGREE on this point) The
two are distinct and will remain distinct to the end of the age as you
have
written. (When the Bible refers to Jews and Gentiles coming together
into
one entity, it is not referring to National Israel, but the church, the
body
of Christ, which one must be born from above to become a part of.)
Reformed
theology does not speak of almagamation(mixing) of the two entities, but
that there is both National Israel as well as Spiritual Israel (the
church).
2. The Bible does not simply to refer to Gentiles being saved
"around" the
Jewish believers, but "into" the body formed by the Jewish
believers (not
National Israel, but the church)
Eph 4:14-15 "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one
and has
destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in
his
flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. (Point: Jesus' work
on
the cross not only secured salvation for Jews AND Gentiles, but
"destroyed"
the barrier between the two. As long as there are differences (not just
referring to national difference, but spiritual hopes, spiritual
realities,
etc., there is still a barrier! Only a hermeneutic that results in the
two
truly becoming "one" does the barrier cease to exist!)
Eph 2:12 "remember that at that time you were separate from Christ,
excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of
the
promise, without hope and without God in the world." (Point: These
gentile
believers in Ephesus were not saved into National Israel, but into the
"true" or "spiritual" Israel. Note: They are not now
citizens "around"
Israel as your hermeneutic appears to describe (i.e. one body, but two
separate entities within that one body); rather they have become
citizens
"in" or "into" Israel, ... again, not referring to
National Israel, but the
one body of Christ, once dominated by redeemed Jews, but now in the New
Testament dispensation consisting of BOTH redeemed Jews and Gentiles.)
Eph 3:6 "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are
heirs
together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together
in
the promise in Christ Jesus." (Point: The text does not say the two
are
saved into "two distinct" bodies, but "ONE" body
(the church)).
3. National Israel is NOT the church (Rom 9:6ff "It is not as
though God’s
word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
")
However, that does NOT mean that the word "Israel" is not used
to refer to
those redeemed in the New Testament dispensation.
Rom 11:25-26 "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery,
brothers,
so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in
part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all
Israel
will be saved, as it is written:..." (Point: When it says
"ALL" Israel
will be saved, this cannot be referring to National Israel; nor is it
simply
talking about Jews that are saved out of National Israel, it MUST be
talking
about those who are saved in Christ, i.e., the church)
Gal 6:16 "Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the
Israel
of God." (Point: This could refer to just Jews who are saved out of
National Israel, but it makes more sense to apply it to the church (Jews
and
Gentiles) since all believers follow this rule.
Heb 8:10 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of
Israel, after
that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and
write
them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
(Certainly, this covenant does NOT apply to just Jews today, but to ALL
believers - Jews and Gentiles (the church)).
Acts 20:28 "For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with
you. It
is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain."
(Point:
one could make the argument that Paul was just referring to Jews here,
but
clearly he was in chains for the Gentiles as well)
Acts 5:31 "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and
Savior that
he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel."
(Point:
Question, again... was he only referring to Jews, or to Gentiles as
well!)
4. Concerning baptism and circumcision, the two are linked in Col 2:11
Col 2:9ff "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in
bodily
form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over
every
power and authority. In him, you were also circumcised, in the putting
off
of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men
but
with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in
baptism
and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised
him
from the dead." (Here, the believer is said to have been
circumcised ...
having been baptized. Both are "signs" of the covenant of
grace. Baptism
with Christ is to have one's heart circumcised or cleansed. Here the
link
is not simply referring to physical circumcision , but to spiritual
circumcision, where the Spirit cuts away the "spiritual" flesh
and provides
for the purity of the recipient.)
Though this does not address ALL that you referred to, hopefully it has
addressed the hermeneutic and the major issues.
Thank you again for writing to us, and we look forward to hearing from
you
again soon.
|
