The Church is NOT EQUAL to Israel!

It seems that those who prefer the "allegorical" or "spiritual" method of interp only do so when it relates to Israel. I know of no covenant theologian who wants to allegorize Isa 7:14 or Mic 5:2! Certainly prophetic language contains figures of speech, but these do not NEGATE the clear intent of the prophecies! When God said that the seed of Abraham would be in bondage 400 years, He did not mean 4 days, or weeks, or millennia. Hundreds of OT prophecies are incredibly detailed and specific and SO WAS THEIR FULFILLMENT! It is TOTALLY inconsistent to understand most of these in a normal contextual literal grammitical sense and then reverse the meaning of the words when you come to Israel! How can we tell when God says something plainly but expects us to believe it allegorically? How do we know when we can believe Him and when we have to change the meanings of the words?

I would strongly contend that when one shifts the normal meaning of words in Scripture, he had better have a MUCH better reason that seeking to balance out his own theology!

And YES, interpreting the bible in a consistent manner is one of the most important resolutions that any student of the book can make!!!

 

No, leaky dispensationalist because of some of the extremes in some dispensational camps. I have no doubt that JM seeks to distance himself from Ryrie, et al in the DTS camp over the lordship controversy, but when pressed about "why a leaky dispensationalist" JM refers to the some of the extremism among dispies, specifially mentioning Clarence Larkin on both occasions when I was present for his explanation.

Incidentally, following his message at the 2007 Shepherd's conference, JM did a six part series at Grace Church on "Sovereign Election, Israel, and Escahtology".

You can find them here... http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-334.htm through http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-339.htm, under the main topic "Eschatology".

 

I certainly make no claim at being a scholar myself. I prefer the designation, Bible student.

But, the simple fact of the matter is that if two people hold diametrically opposing points of view on a theological position, BOTH CANNOT BE RIGHT. Both can be WRONG, but both cannot be right.

Given the importance of the Word of God and the emphasis upon preaching the Word and declaring the whole counsel of God, those of us in ministry cannot be so cavalier as to proclaim, "Good men have stood on both sides of the issue here, so the issue must not be that important."

For HEAVEN'S SAKE, study it out and come to a position that is Bibilcally defensible and consistent and TAKE A STAND! But never be so committed to any position that you are unwilling to read the best the other side has to offer for theirs and against yours.

Iron sharpens iron and all that...

 

A Jew is the same as an Israelite. Whatever Rom 2:28-29 means, it does not remove the distinction between Jew and Gentile, for Paul continues to maintain the distinction throughout the book. Rom 3:1-3 – 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Outward circumcision does not guarantee salvation, it is the heart that matters – that is the point of Rom 2:28-29. It certainly does not remove all meaning from the terms "Jew" or "Israel" for they are used to designate between Jew and Gentile throughout the rest of the NT, not to mention the thousands of times they are so used in the OT. IMO, based on clear designations in Scripture, you are wrong to consider yourself a Jew on the basis that you are a believer. In fact, as a believer in this age, you are part of the church, in which body such designations are irrelevant. However the designations are not irrelevant as far as Bible prophecy and future events are concerned, nor are they irrelevant as far as God’s specific covenants and promises are concerned for ethnic Israel.

Absolutely! If we are talking about salvation, then both Jew and Greek are on level ground whether they have been saved or not. If we’re talking about the church, both Jew and Greek are on level ground in the body. However, his does not abrogate, remove, cancel, reverse, or in any way change the OT covenants and promises to national Israel.

Here is where a superimposed covenant of grace creates problems. It leads to the viewing of Scripture according to that systematization and not according to the BIBLICAL covenants that are clearly stated and delineated in the OT.
The Abrahamic Covenant had benefits and blessings to "all the families of the earth", but it was a a covenant with Abraham, through Isaac, and Jacob. The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant between God and Israel. Many provisions and regulations of the Mosaic law parallel God’s moral law for all creation, but the Law was given to Israel/the Jews, not to the Gentiles – not then, not now, not ever. The Land Covenant, called by some the Palestinian Covenant, was distinct and separate from the Mosaic Covenant. There are some provisions in the Land Covenant that parallel some of the provisions of the New Covenant. The Davidic Covenant, likewise had some elements that were in common with some of the other covenants, but it too was a separate and distinct covenant. The Abrahamic, Land, Davidic and New Covenants are unconditional covenants of GRACE in that God promises to fulfill these without regard to faithfulness on the part of the parties to the covenants. What faithfulness is involved in these unconditional covenants will be insured and guaranteed by God in His grace, to wit, He will change their hearts and make them faithful!

As far as the New Covenant...

NO! The Jews were not given ANOTHER NEW COVENANT. They were given the ONLY NEW COVENANT! It has been ratified by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, but they have not yet entered into that covenant. Just as the Abrahamic Covenant was with Abraham and his ethnic posterity (through Isaac, and Jacob, NOT Ishmael and Esau) but had benefits and blessing to all the families of the earth, even so the New Covenant is with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:8,10) was NOT WITH THE GENTILES, or with the CHURCH. GENTILES ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE NEW COVENANT. The church is a benefactor of the Covenant, but not a party to it. NOWHERE IS THE NEW COVENANT DEFINED IN TERMS THAT INCLUDE GENTILES, OR THE CHURCH. Repeatedly, the New Covenant is said to be between God and Israel. I think Rom 9 even states that, albeit in less specific terms – Rom 9:4-5 – "4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

We are saved by His blood of the New Covenant, as we preach a gospel of salvation to both Jew and Gentile and the promise of a coming kingdom, we are able ministers of the New Covenant. Paul always preached to the Jews first and turned to the Gentiles only after the Jews had rejected their Messiah, again. Salvation is a pretty significant by product of the New Covenant, and Salvation is for all who will come, but the New Covenant was first, foremost, always, ever, and ONLY a covenant from God to the House of a Israel and the House of Jacob. THERE IS NO NEW COVENANT WITH THE CHURCH.

Absolutely! Christ is the seed and in Christ all families of the earth shall be blessed – NOT all families of the earth shall be made Israelites by faith, as Covenant Theology asserts, or at least implies.

Rom 9:4-5 is declaring that God DID INDEED bless the Jews in a remarkable way above all the families of the earth, in that TO THEM pertaineth the adoption, the glory, THE COVENANTS, the law... It was to them that Messiah came (John 1:11), not to the Gentiles. In fact, until the Jews publicly demonstrated their determination to reject Him as their Messiah, Jesus told the disciples NOT TO GO TO THE GENTILES, OR TO THE SAMARITANS, but ONLY to the Lost sheep of the House of Israel (Mat 10).

OK. You lost me on the second part of this, "the body of our Lord Jesus spoken of as being of Israel"? If you are saying that Jesus was a Jew, I agree. If you are saying something else, please clarify.

Rom 9:6-7, not all the Jews are [true] Jews because they are not by faith. Nor is all the seed of Abraham under the covenant because God limited the covenant through Isaac and Jacob.

All of the fleshly descendants are not Israel, OK, but it is NOT TRUE that ISRAEL will include those who are not fleshly descendants, as assumed by Covenant Theology.

The Abrahamic covenant depended on Sarah having a son, but this was NOT the only provision of the Covenant, and certainly the other OT Covenants are much broader than this! That is one of the major flaws of CT! It tends to group all the covenants of the OT under one covenant of Grace and thereby discounts, ignores, minimizes, and discards some other provisions that are very significant! THIS IS A FATAL FLAW IN CT!!!

 

I am totally with you through points 1-4. Ultimately the end is His glory, I am sure we agree, right?

WE ARE STILL TOGETHER HERE, but UH, OH...

WHAT!!! NOT THE NEW COVENANT!!! Read it... "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (Rom 11:27)

Jer 31:34 – "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

NOT THE NEW COVENANT! On what other basis could He take away their sin?

This has to mean all Jews alive at that time.

Zech 12:10 – "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon 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 firstborn."
13:1 – "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness."
14:2-4 – "2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."

Great Revival, I should say so!

On what basis would you say that Isa 59:21 and Jer 31:31-34 are different covenants? I say they are the same! The result is the same. The basis is always the same. Why do you say that they are different? I maintain that they are not. Just a little different context and different manner of saying the same thing.

There are yet many promises to be fulfilled! It is exciting, but it is not another covenant. The Jews have not yet possessed all the land that was promised. Christ is reigning in Heaven, but not yet on David’s throne. The Holy Spirit indwells the hearts of believers, but GOD HAS NOT YET WRITTEN HIS LAW ON THE HEARTS OF ALL ISRAEL! Amazing how CT takes Israel and Judah and makes them the Church and takes the indwelling Holy Spirit and makes His indwelling presence the fulfillment of the Law being written on the hearts.

Jer 31:33-34 says, "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

How some people get "church" out of that is totally beyond me, and I have worked to try to understand how they could possibly draw that out of the text. Israel has not yet seen such a widespread revival that there is no longer a need to teach other saying "know the Lord". The church has certainly not seen such a revival, there is so much work left to do.

It will indeed be a great revival, but most will not hear as the word is proclaimed. They will see and recognize the workings of God in their midst, they will understand that the great judgments are from Him, and yet they will not repent. The kingdom will come, only when He brings it by force and rules with a rod of iron. Then, "all Israel shall be saved" when they "look upon the One whom they pierced and mourn." It will indeed be a glorious day, when the people of Israel are brought into the fulness of their covenant relationship with the Father.

INDEED!

 

Personally, I believe that "elect" can refer to EITHER Israel as a nation, or to believers who are part of the church, the body of Christ. But, not both at the same time. It is true that both Jew and Gentile believers are one in the church and that they are "elect", but I can not think of a passage where "elect" is used to refer to both the "church" and ethnic "Israel" at the same time.

I know it may sound like it, but I am not trying to nit pick, I am trying to be precise in my statement of Biblical truth.

 

I do not know of a "national covenant", but there are provisions of the Abrahamic covenant that yet remain to be fulfilled. Jesus is not yet reigning on David's throne in Jerusalem. And the Law of God has not yet been put into the heart of every Jew. The Jews may not get a renewed "national covenant" whatever that may entail, but they are promised the land FOREVER. Also fits well with a literal view of Rom 11:25-27.

If there will not be a new temple, how will the "abomination of desolation" be fulfilled? Paul clearly says that the "man of sin... the son of perdition" will sit in "the temple of God" demanding worship as God (Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4-5; Rev 13:15).

I find no mention of any of this in Isa 66:22-23. But I do find a clear statement that in "the new heavens and the new earth" all flesh will come to worship Him "from one sabbath to another".

One Sabbath to another sure sounds like God's covenant with Israel in the new heavens and the new earth:

Exod 31:13-18 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. 14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

It also sounds a lot like the Law, which God will write into the hearts of the House of Israel and the House of Judah -- Jer 31:31-34.

First, where do you find that "The Church is the visible manifestation of God's covenant of grace" in Scripture. In fact, where you find a "covenant of grace" in Scripture? Covenants with Israel? Yes. Grace for both Israel and the Church? Yes. A "covenant of grace", I have not been able to find that one...

Second, Isa 35 clearly speaks of the land of Israel blossoming like a rose when their God comes with a vengeance and a recompense to save them. Verse 10 says that the "ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with songs." That this follows the "days of vengeance" in which Jerusalem is destroyed is evident in that salvation comes to Israel, not destruction. This fits perfectly with Luke 21:20-28.

Notice,

Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies...

They shall fall by the edge of the sword and be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

then, "when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."
Compare this with Zech 12-14; Deut 30:1-6 and Matt 24:29-31. At the destruction of Jerusalem, they were not regathered to the land, they were not given a new heart, and their redemption did not draw nigh, Jesus is not yet ruling with a rod of iron, from the throne of His father David...

I cannot understand how CTs can accuse Dispies of forcing things into and onto the Word with their systematization and not see that they do the same thing with their covenants? (please note the tacit admission that dispies do sometimes "force" their systematization.)

 

I have generally considered myself a dispy but really believe that I would be almost as content to systematize my theology on the basis of the Biblical covenants and gaps before and between them.

God's did not define His relationship with Adam and Eve in terms of a covenant, but since that time, He has worked primarily through one covenant or another and sometimes overlapping covenants.

I do not see the church as being under a covenant. I see the church as participating in the provisions of both the Abrahamic and the New Covenant, but I cannot get that the church is a party to the NC on the basis of the references at the Lord's supper, in Cor, or in Heb.

I have seen some pretty extreme abuses in dispensationalism and am almost hesitant to wear that label. As far as eschatology goes I am more of a dispensationalist than a covenantalist. As far as soteriology goes, I am far more Calvinist than Arminian. But I find even within the designations with which I would be most closely aligned some positions and implications with which I am not content.

To tell the truth, the more I study the BOOK, the less I fit well into any of those molds. I do not hold to Lordship salvation, but neither can I accept the "crossless gospel". I can not tolerate the addition of works to God's grace, but nor can I accept that simple mental assent to stated truths of Scripture is equal to salvation.

I am baptist, but we have elders. We receive an offering, but we do not pass the collection plate. I present the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, but we do not do altar calls. To repeat, the more I study the BOOK, the less I fit well into the molds. I can live with that. I am not out to create a stir for no reason, but I am willing to rock the boat if it will make people learn to swim! I am not a rebel without a cause, but I am willing to push the envelope to challenge someone (myself included) to read the other side and reexamine their one theological positions.

Oh, well. That is a little bit of where I am coming from. Maybe that I why I chose the name BEREA for our church -- don't assume that everything your hear or read is necessarily true. Listen with an open heart, open mind, and check it out in the book. AND I usually emphasize that having an open mind is something less than having a hole in your head. Some people are so open minded their brain rolls out from time to time and some have lost it altogether!

 

I know of no reliable theologian (or serious student) who holds to a wooden literalism as some have accused. A consistent literal grammital historical hermeneutic recognizes figures of speech, literary devices, and allegorial instruction. The difference between balanced dispies and CTs is that dispies believe that the OT is the basis for understanding of the NT and many CTs believe that the NT reinvents the meaning of the OT. Perhaps that is a bit overstated, if so, sorry.

For any debate to have real value, both sides must be committed to the ethics of fairly stating the other position in a manner with which those who hold to the other side would agree is a fair representation of their position.

It is of no value to engage in debate if we are not truly seeking to understand the other side before we evaluate and respond. Sometimes we all just need to think through it a little more thoroughly. That is why I have read literally THOUSANDS of pages from the CT perpective. Even at that, I am sure there are elements and portions that I do not understand because of my own predispositions, not matter how much I try not to let them influence my thinking.

 

Both Israel and the church are God's people. But the church is not Israel and Israel is not the church.




I am my father's son. My brother John, is also my father's son. But I am not John and John is not Ray. It is non-sequitur to assume that since both are son’s that they are the same.

There are numerous distinctions! Same with Israel and the Church, my point in this thread.