In the view of the end times that has been most popular
among the evangelical church over the past century, dispensational premillennialism,
it is often put forward that God’s Plan A was for Israel to accept the Christ
and to usher in the kingdom after his first coming. Because this did not
happen, then the gospel was taken to Gentiles and the result was the New
Testament Church. It exists primarily as Plan B, since Israel mostly rejected
Jesus as the Christ. In fairness, not all who who hold to this end times view
argue this. But the vast majority at least holds to two different programs of
God for two different peoples (Israel and the New Testament Church). These two
programs stand behind why a literal 1,000 year millennium is thought necessary
by some—namely to fulfill God’s promises to ethnic Israel.
However, this view is problematic. In fact, most
post-tribulational premillennialists, as well as amillennialists, understand
the problems inherent in this approach. The reality there are problems in this
two-programs-view leads us to the fifth reason why I hold to the end-times view
known as amillennialism:
5. The Strong New Testament emphasis that
the New Testament Church (comprised of Jew and Gentile) comprises the people of
God, a continuation of His people in the Old Testament, mitigates against any
end-times position that would see two programs for two people of God (the
Church and Israel).
There are a
number of points I desire to make in defense of this fifth reason.
(1) On the
reality dispensational premillennialists have such a view of Israel and the New
Testament Church, consider the following quotes:
(a) “The
dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two
distinct purposes: one related to the
earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism;
while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly
objectives involved, which is Christianity….”[1]
(b) “Of
prime importance to the premillennial interpretation of Scripture is the
distinction provided in the New Testament between God’s present purpose for the
Church and His purpose for the nation Israel. Individuals who are descendants
of Jacob in this present age have equal privilege with Gentiles in putting
their trust in Christ and forming the body of Christ the church. The New
Testament as well as the Old, however, makes clear that the nation of Israel as such
has its promises fulfilled ultimately in the future reign of Christ over them….
The present age, according to premillennial interpretation, is the fulfillment
of God’s plan and purpose, revealed in the new body of saints. It is only when this purpose is completed
that God can bring to pass the tragic judgments which precede the millennial reign
of Christ and inaugurate the righteousness and peace which characterize the
millennial kingdom.[2]
(emphasis added)
(2) Here are some
New Testament Passages that explicitly or implicitly teach there is continuity between
Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church, and that they do not comprise
two different people of God or two different programs of God.
(a) Galatians 6:15-16: “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16And as for all
who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, [even] upon the Israel of
God.”
At the very
least “the Israel of God” must be distinct from the children of “present
Jerusalem” (4:25), “the true people of God are the believing children of
Abraham” (3:7, 29) who belong to Jerusalem above.”[3]
“This rule” appears to refer to those who
agree with Paul and what he says in v. 15. As such, it appears to refer to all
true believers (Jew and Gentile). I
would argue the Greek word kai should be translated “even” (not “and”) since
it would be strange to introduce a reference to ethnic Israel here. The use of
“Israel of God” to refer to the New Testament Church would be in keeping with
what Paul says earlier in this epistle (3:29; 4:26-31). In fact, a reference here to ethnic Israel would
seem to be inconsistent with these earlier references in the epistle.
(b) Phil. 3:3: “For we are the circumcision, who
worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh.” (speaking of
the New Testament Church—Jew and Gentile).
(c) Acts 13:32-34, 38-39: “32And we bring you
the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33this he has
fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the
second Psalm,
'You
are my Son, today I have begotten you.' 34And as for the fact that he raised him
from the dead, no more to
return to corruption, he has spoken in this way,
'I will give you the holy and sure blessings
of David.' 38Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man
forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39and by him everyone who believes is freed
from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.”
Hoekema, The Bible
And The Future (197) writes: “Note that, according to these
words, God’s promises to the fathers have been fulfilled in the resurrection of
Jesus, and that in that resurrection God has given to his New Testament people,
‘the sure blessings of David.’ These promises and blessings, further, are
interpreted as meaning, not a future Jewish kingdom in the millennium, but
forgiveness of sins and salvation. The promises made to Israel,
therefore, are fulfilled in the New Testament church.”
(d) Matthew 5:17 (Jesus speaking): “Don not think that
I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them
but to fulfill them.” The reason promises made to Israel are fulfilled in the
New Testament Church is that more accurately all the Law (its types and
promises) is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the Church is united to Jesus Christ
(cf. Romans 6). As such, united to the Beloved, to the true Israel, the
people of God have the promises of God.
(e) 1 Peter 2:9:
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his
own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you
out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
Hoekema, The Bible
And The Future (198), after highlighting the reality Peter is
addressing Christians in this epistle, explains: “Peter is here applying to the New Testament
church expressions which are used in the Old Testament to describe Israel.” See
Ex. 19:5-6; Is. 43:20.
(f) “Seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:27-29) in the New
Testament now designates the New Testament Church (Jew and Gentile), not merely
ethnic Israel.
(g) Zion and Jerusalem are now used of the people
of God, Jew and Gentile, or at least to their dwelling place: Heb. 12:22-24;
Rev. 21:2.
(h) Ephesians 2:11-22: God has made Jews and
Gentiles fellow-members of the household of God. See esp. 2:14!
(i) Regardless of how one understands Romans
11:25-27 (esp. 26), nothing in that text demands a future dealing with Israel
such that there is a special or different purpose, i.e. a future millennial
reign. In fact, the preceding context
(17-24) suggests only one purpose, all (Jew and Gentile) being grafted into one
tree, one people of God.
(j) 1 Peter 1:10-12:
“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied
about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,
11 inquiring what person
or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the
sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them
that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been
announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy
Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.”
Don Garlington
writes: “It goes almost without saying
that such teaching places the church of Jesus Christ—Gentile as well as Jew—in
a position of unprecedented privilege.
The people of God have always been his special possession (e.g. Ex.
19:5); but this text explicitly states that the people of the new age occupy a
place of unparalleled importance: they are the subject of biblical prophecy,
and their future is inseparable from that of Christ himself. Hence, the
Christological principle of hermeneutics is inconceivable apart from the
ecclesiological principle where Christ is found, his people are found also.
According, the history of Israel
is to be viewed as the preparation for that people ‘upon whom the end of the
ages has come’ (1 Cor. 10:11), the ‘one new man’ in Christ (Eph. 2:15).”[4]
(3) “As the butterfly surpasses the
caterpillar from which it emerges, so the Church as the New Israel surpasses
the Old Israel. The butterfly does not exactly replace the caterpillar. It is
the caterpillar in a new phase of existence. In the same way, to speak of the
Church replacing Israel is to forget that the Church is Israel in a newly
reformed and expanded phase of existence. In a word, terminology like
replacement theology or supersessionism disguises the biblical fact that the
church is really the continuation of Israel.”[5]
[3] Simon J. Gathercole, ESVSB,
2256.
[4] Don Garlington, “Reigning
With Christ: Revelation 20:1-6 In Its Salvation-Historical Setting” (accessed
on 9/22/10 at mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/reigning.html.), 4-5.
[5] Samuel E. Waldron, MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A
Friendly Response (Owensboro,
KY, RBAP, 2008), 7 (cited in Storms, Kingdom
Come,
188-89).
No comments:
Post a Comment