I'm going to end these blogs on why I have gone from Dispensational to becoming Covenantal here with this blog. I could go on and on from so many different angles - I could focus on how I am disillusioned with contemporary eschatology and it's crystal ball approach to scripture or I could focus on the unity and motifs of the Covenants in particular - but the angle I have chosen was to approach the subject from an 'Israel/Church and a single plan of God throughout history' sort of way. Truth be known I have moved on from this subject well over a month ago delighting myself instead with Thomas Cahills series: Hinges of History; having read How the Irish Saved Civilization; Gifts of the Jews; and Desire of the Everlasting Hills. And currently I am reading (God help me) Karl Giberson's Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. When I'm done this one I'll probably give a review on my blog.
Review:
Back to our current subject: So far I have argued for the (I believe) fact that the very word Israel is a spiritual word, one given to those who are Princes with God, or God's answer to the problem of the Fall, (i.e. a recreation, a new Adam). That there was (is) a national Israel that did not live up to their name is beyond a doubt, but the word Israel was to have a larger application then simply a single ethnic group - God's concern is and always has been the entire human race, but the mechanisms he has chosen have varied, and one particular mechanism was to divinely and providentially call apart a people for himself to be a light to the world, to bring the world to rights and to be a testimony to the world of what a people after God would be like. But when the people who carried the title Israel (or Rulers with God) rejected God's rule ("they have not rejected you Samuel, but they have rejected me as their King") then God sought to preserve his plan and promises to Abraham through a remnant within Israel itself (cf. the days of Elijah), a true Israel.
However, whether we are discussion a fleshly Israel who had abandoned God's purpose for their lives, or whether we are talking about the remnant which God himself has preserved, the fact remained that they were all still sons of Adam and consequentially a product of the Fall (i.e. all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God). But so that God's promises to Abraham and to the Covenants might be fulfilled, God sent forth his Son in the likeness of an Adam, yet without sin, to condemn sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3), he succeeded at every point where corporate Israel had failed; and what I argued in my previous blog is that Christ was true Israel, the embodiment of One who Rules with God, and subsequently through his resurrection he became the fulfillment and first fruits of a New Creation or a Second Adam, as Paul put it.
So now where does this leave the Church? Are there two distinct peoples of God or one? How are we to understand the Church and her relation to the term "Israel" in light of Jewish Messiah who is, of course, our Messiah?
The Church: Rulers with God
The biblical evidence to support what I am about to conclude from everything already said is (in my opinion) insurmountable! But in the spirit of wanting to move on let me simply outline it for you.
Israel, those in Christ!
- Israel was one man only; but in Exodus 4:22 the descendants of Jacob are called Israel. The term goes from first applying to one man, then to all those who are "in" that one man.
- We find this again in the New Testament; that Christ, as I have shown is the Second Adam, the first fruits of a New Creation and (in keeping with this discussion) Israel in the truest sense of the term. Thus those who are "in" Christ are now also a New Creation, and the true Israel of God (Gal 6:16; Gal 3:6-26 ff, Ephesians 1). I'm not simply drawing random apparent parallels between Israel and the Church anymore then Matthew "randomly" or accidentally fell upon certain parallels between the history of Israel and Jesus himself.
Consider the following:
What I hinted at in a previous blog is that there are two lineages of Abraham; a lineage of the flesh and a lineage of the Faith. The lineage of faith is what we are most interested in because it will prove that there are not "two people and plans and purposes of God" but only one - by faith. Abraham's true children are those who are of faith, not those of the flesh! This means both Jews and Gentiles of faith make up spiritual (or true) Israel; while on the flip side of the coin, those who are both Jews and Gentiles of the flesh are not spiritual (or true) Israel! True children of Abraham, (i.e. true Israelites) are not those of an ethnic heritage, but those of a spiritual one, by faith! Consider these point forms:- Gal. 3:6-7: lineage of faith
- Matt 3:9-10: lineage of faith
- John 8:39: lineage of faith
- John 8:41-44: lineage of the flesh
- John 1:47: lineage of faith
- Romans 2:28-29: lineage of faith/flesh
- Gal. 4:22-31: lineage of faith verse a lineage of the flesh
I also want to point out here that Israel was to be a Royal Priesthood and a holy nation (Romans 2), (those familiar with their bible probably already know where I am going with this), Peter says that we the Church are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation" - we the Church are God's holy nation! - 1 Peter 2:9! Not ethnic Israel, but spiritual (or true) Israel are the holy nation, made up of both Jews and Gentiles!
Turing this whole subject on it's head there is a fearful lesson to be learned by those who call themselves part of the "Christian Church". Just as in the case with Israel, one is not an Israelite by ethnicity only, so also in the Christian Church one is not a part of God's ekklesia, God's Church, (God's Israel as Paul says in Galatians) simply by claiming membership or attending services. The Church of God is a living organism, a spiritual body made up of many parts but with Christ (not your bishop) as head. You must not claim membership in an organization and assume you are a part of the Body of Christ. For that to be the case you must be a member by faith in which denominational barriers do not exist - please be that member.
More could be said on the subject: The 144,000 from every tribe in Revelation: 12 tribes / 12 apostles - the foundation of Israel both visible and spiritual, multiplied by one thousand (the number of completion) equals the complete people of God. It's as Paul said, when the time of the Gentiles is complete, then all Israel (the Israel of God breaking ethnic barriers) will be saved! I could speak of how Israel is God's bride in the Old Testament and how the ekklesia is God's bride in the New Testament - God is not a polygamist, neither has He abandoned (divorced) his promise to Abraham and his heirs, rather the bride in the "Old" and the bride in the "New" together make up one people (Romans 9-11, cf. Hosea; Ephesians etc). Or else we could consider the New Jerusalem in Revelation a structure too enormous to be taken "literally", the context itself demands we not do so. Rather the New Jerusalem is (don't miss the allusions) a pure bride coming down from heaven, then an angle says to John, "let me show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb" and what does he see, none other then the "Holy City, Jerusalem" with twelve gates each with the name of the twelve tribes of Israel, and twelve foundation stones each with the names of the twelve apostles on it. How anyone could miss the significance is beyond me! What we have here is a picture of the complete Church or Israel (interchangeably), the pure bride of Christ - no temple, God is the Temple, no sun - the glory is God gives it's light.
And in all of this I have not even begun to expound on all the passages above, and many more not even hinted at here. This is a blog not a book; the bottom line is that I do not see how Ryrie or anyone else could hold such a position, as he does, in the face of such an explicit biblical motif!
This must be why others (cf. Darrell Brock) have moved on from tradition Dispensationalism to a so-called Progessive Dispensationalism, in an attempt to align or amalgamate a dispensational world-view with a strongly Covenantal motif in scripture.
Conclusion:
Have I effectively met my goal and expressed why I have travelled from Dispensationalism to Covenantalism? Maybe; or maybe I simply went off on a tangent in one area, not doing justice to the complete subject and reasoning behind (or driving) my journey. Certainly a large part of my persuasion has been a great disillusionment with the crystal ball approach to current events by modern "prophets" (I mean that in the most cynical sense possible) such as current Nostradamus' like Grant Jeffrey and Jack van Impe who seem to know more about the future then God (being the Open Theist that I am).
I hope I have made some positive and coherent arguments among all this jargon and rambling of mine. My goal was not (as it never is) to force anyone to accept a position I've taken (naturally since my own positions are forever in flux), but to encourage further thoughts (pensées) on any given subject. I hope I have done this here.
Until Next Time: Remain stable with the God who was, is and always will be; the One who forever has been the same.
Blessings.
Derek
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment