Thread: Present Day Reformed Churchs On Who Is Israel
Admin
Present Day Reformed Churchs On Who Is Israel
Posted : 3 Jun, 2012 05:13 AM
On a large Christian forum, not part of a dating service, which I probably should not name, one of
the members said the last few days that: "The NT Church is understood to be the �New Israel.�
The Reformed covenant position recognizes a strict continuity between the OT people of God, Israel, and the NT people of God, the Church, the Body of Christ. According to Romans 4:11, 12 and Galatians 3:15-29, Christians are considered the true spiritual seed of Abraham. Reformed writers, Crenshaw and Gunn state,
Paul argues in Galatians 3 that God intentionally used seed as a collective noun that has both a singular and plural reference so that the singular reference could refer to Christ and the plural reference could refer to those who are in Christ. Paul�s point is that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham and to his seed (vs. 16), that the seed of Abraham is Christ (vs. 16) and all who are in Christ (vs. 29), and that therefore the promise given to Abraham belongs to all who are in Christ (vs. 29), � When Paul was explaining the Old Testament promise that belongs to the Christian, he was referring specifically to the land promise � [Crenshaw and Gunn, 234, 235]
Their comment builds upon John Calvin�s views of these passages, who wrote,
In a word, he gives the appellation of the Israel of God to those whom he formally denominated the children of Abraham by faith (Gal. 3:29), and thus includes all believers, whether Jews or gentiles, who were united into one Church. [Calvin, 186]"
The traditional Reformed teaching did not clearly say that Isreal reborn in Jesus Christ, after Christ, the dresser in the parable of the fig tree of Luke 13: 6-9, cut down Israel to himself alone and then his Apostles and after the Cross to the three thousand born again following Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41, is still the Israel of God, but made a spiritual house (I Peter 2: 5-9). But Calvinism prior to the 19th century start of the falling away did not follow the Catholics in saying that the capital C "church" replaced Israel, nor did the Calvinists say anything like 19th century dispensationalism taught, that God now has two peoples, the Jews and the 'church."
Now, after the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 is well under way, it appears the Reformed chuches will not accept the position of the Remnant that physical Israel was transformed into israel reborn in Christ, that physical Israel is not the chosen people, but the believers are, and the implications of all this. The Reformed churches will stick to their capital C church identity as a body of Christ, not just a meeting, assembly or conregation of Israel as a spiritual house. In their formal docrines they may not go as far as to say that God now has two peoples, the Jews and the church. And they may not teach against the idea that physical Israel remains the chosen people.
"Paul in Romans 4: 13-14 and Galatians 3: 16-29 teaches that all who are in Christ are now the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith. He does not spoon feed us. We have to figure out by what he says that physical descent from Abraham is no longer the way to become the chosen of God. And the problem and importance here is that the teaching that believers, or the elect, are the spiritual heirs of Abraham by faith, and by being in Christ is a part of the Gospel. Contradicting this teaching is not of faith and points to another Gospel and another Christ.
Scripture does not contradict itself. If it appears to do so, there is something wrong with your interpretation of scripture."
"But Isreal is HATED for the gospel. but LOVED for the promises, because gods GIFTS are irrevocable. God promised that through abraham all the nations would be blessed. and recieve the heavenly promised land. He also promised the physical decedents would recieve the physical land of canaan as a promise forever.
Even if I lived in that promised land, I too would rather have the heavenly, But it does nt mean Gods promise to them is not valid.
If God renigs on his promise, he lied to abraham, and us."
The above is what a different guy on this same forum wrote in the last few days.
Here is the opposition between two polarities, one holding to the Gospel of the New Covenant and the New Testament, and the other holding on to the Old Covenant chosen people belief based upon physical descent from Abraham. There should be no consensus using the dialectic between these two opposites. And those holding to the first position, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the transformation of physical Israel into Israel as a spiritual house, reborn in Christ, must not use the dialectic in continual wrestling with the opposite position, because in that process you can began to be processed into the dialectic yourself.
Part of the opposing position is the desire to have their version of Christ and at the same time to hold on to the belief that the chosen people status by physical descent continues after Christ died to transform physical Israel into Israel reborn in him. Revelation 2: 9 says "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."
Arguing, in effect, that physical Israel remains the chosen people because of their physical descent from Abraham when Christ came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and died on the Cross to transform them into a spiritual house reborn in him, or actually a remnant of them, is like saying one is a Jew but is not a real Jew as Paul defines a real Jew in Romans 2: 29.
Those of the Gospel of Christ should just state that position as clearly as they can, and when the opposite side rejects it, leave the argument. Leave the conflict to the Lord. Remember II John 9-10, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:"
The problem is that the covenant that the people made with God at Sinai was being allowed to determine the answer to these questions. How are we saved? By fulfilling the law. Who is Israel? Those who fulfill the law. Paul held this view before his conversion, as a Pharisee and persecutor of the church, but on the Damascus Road everything was turned upside down when he encountered a vision of the very "cursed" one according to the law ("cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree") triumphantly seated at the Father's right hand in glory. Now the questions receive different answers that are, in fact, perfectly consistent with the expectations of the prophets. How are we saved? We are saved in the same way that all of the saints in redemptive history were saved: by trusting in God's promised Messiah. Who are the people of God? The children of promise-those who share Abraham's faith. The heirs of the Sinai covenant (and thus of the earthly land) are those who are ethnic descendants of Abraham, circumcised in the flesh; the heirs of the Abrahamic covenant (fulfilled in the new covenant) are all people, Jew and Gentile, who are "in Christ" through faith alone, circumcised in heart.
Throughout his epistles, therefore, Paul labors the contrast between these "two covenants," represented by two mothers (Sarah the free woman versus Hagar the slave), two mountains (Zion and Sinai), and two Jerusalems (heavenly and earthly) (see especially Gal. 4). Pulling together his teaching across these epistles, we can offer a list of contrasts (see chart below).
Paul has been unveiling the free grace of God in the Abrahamic covenant to all those who are "in Christ": pre-destined, called, justified, glorified (8:30-31). He has stressed the un-conditional basis of this everlasting covenant. So now, especially for those who had confused the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants, the likely question is raised: So, Paul, is this election that you are talking about a new and different one from the election of Israel? Has God failed in his saving purposes for Israel, so that now he finds himself having to resort to "Plan B" (the church)?
To answer this question, the apostle does not invent a new theology of election. Rather, he shows that all along God has fulfilled his eternal electing purposes distinct from the election of Israel as a national theocracy designed to point all the nations to Christ. It was the Abrahamic covenant (made 430 years before the Sinai treaty) that promised blessing for the nations. It was Abraham's sons, Ishmael and Isaac, who illustrate the prerogative of God's sovereign grace in election. Although both were the fruit of his loins and outwardly members of the covenant of grace, circumcised in the flesh, God had already chosen Isaac and rejected Ishmael. "And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done anything good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him who calls), it was said to her, 'The older shall serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated'" (Rom. 9:10-13). God is not unjust in electing apart from any foreseen virtues. Since the elect are chosen out of a mass of perdition, God would only have foreseen sin and resistance in any case. The point could not be any clearer: "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (v. 16).
If this is the way God has always worked, then election and grace cannot be assimilated to the Sinai covenant. God's eternal and unconditional election of individuals for salvation, hidden to us, cannot be confused with his conditional covenant with the nation of Israel. What remains unconditional in God's promises to Israel is his utterly one-sided oath to bring the blessing of salvation to all nations through Abraham's seed. The Sinai covenant, based on law, cannot annul the earlier Abrahamic covenant, based on promise (see Gal. 3:15-18).
So God is not unfaithful. His Word has not failed, even if we do not currently see the Jewish people embracing Christ en masse. The prophets con-sistently taught that Israel would be saved through a remnant, and that this Jewish remnant would also include a remnant from all the nations. Together, they would form "one flock with one shepherd," in a "covenant of peace" (Ezek. 34:11-31). The people resulting from this unconditional election would constitute the true Israel. Paul is simply announcing that this remnant theology of the prophets has been finally realized in the history of redemption.
Many first-century sects saw themselves as this remnant (especially the Essenes); others regarded themselves and their party as a remnant that will purify the whole nation in preparation for Messiah (the Pharisees). Yet across the spectrum, the pattern is the renewal of the Sinaitic covenant. By contrast, with Hebrews 1:1-2, as Delbert Hillers describes, "Early Christians, even those of Jewish descent, did not look on themselves either as an unbroken continuation of the old Israel or as a group attempting to return to an ancient pattern of faith, like the Essenes. Instead, they stood over against the days 'of old' as men living in the 'last days.'" Part of this "newness," says Hebrews 1, is that the new covenant coalesces around a person-a Son, a "better covenant," one "enacted on better promises." Commenting on Jeremiah's prophecy, the writer says, "In speaking of a new covenant, he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (8:13; cf. 9:11-23).
The Sinai covenant can become obsolete because it was a conditional treaty, intended by God to serve an important but temporary purpose of pointing forward to Christ. Once Christ (the reality) has come, the law covenant of Sinai (the shadows) becomes obsolete. If we don't understand this covenantal background, we will either conclude that God has in fact reneged on his promises to Israel or we will build a whole theology around a future restoration of an earthly holy land, with a Davidic king, temple, priest, and sacrifices other than Christ (as in at least old-style dispensationalism).
Thus, the contrast between the Sinai covenant of law and the Abrahamic New Covenant of promise is drawn not merely by the Protestant reformers, nor even merely by Paul, but by the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, and his apostles. By justifying the wicked by faith apart from works of the law (how we are saved: soteriology), God will be able finally to realize the promise made to Abraham and heralded by the prophets (Isa. 9; 49; 60; 66; Jer. 4:2; Ezek. 39), that in him and his Seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed (who will be saved: ecclesiology).
Has God Failed?
If all of this is granted, of course, the question is raised for us as it was for the apostles as to whether God has simply set aside one covenant for another, one people for another, and if so, whether any of God's promises can be trusted. Far from a mere point of theological speculation, this is a heart-wrenching personal issue. The argument begins with Paul's willingness to be "cut off" for the sake of his "kindred according to the flesh" (9:2). Far from dismissing the Jewish people as having been replaced by what will be increasingly a Gentile church, Paul reinforces the original connection: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (vv. 4-5).
Far from identifying the Hebrew scriptures exclusively with law, in opposition to gospel, Paul recognizes that both law and gospel, command and promise, are part of Israel's heritage (notice the plural "covenants" in 9:4). Thus, Israel is the people of God and the place where God has always held intercourse with the world, supremely in the arrival of the Messiah.
Yet, adopting the remnant theology already present in the Old Testament, Paul reminds his readers,
It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants, but "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you" [Gen. 21:12]. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. (vv. 6-8)
"Not all Israelites truly belong to Israel," according to Paul, is a thesis that goes all the way back to the patriarchal period itself: the promise was made to Abraham and Sarah (not Hagar), so from the beginning election was not determined simply by ancestry, since according to law Ishmael would have been heir. (In fact, the law explicitly upheld the right of the firstborn even if the offspring was of "the disliked" wife rather than the "loved" wife [Deut. 21:15-17].)
The point is that election and the promise are God's to give, not the patriarchs'. Here, God is the father who bestows his inheritance to whomever he chooses. Hardly lost on readers to this day is the question Paul anticipates:
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" [Exod. 33:19]. So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth" [Exod. 9:16]. So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. (vv. 14-18)
The apostle anticipates our perennial question whenever God's electing grace is discussed: "You will say to me then, 'Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?'," offering anything but a rationally satisfying reply calculated to suspend our speculations: "But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?" (vv. 19-20), especially when we consider that according to strict justice, God could have determined to leave all people under sin. Unconditional election proclaims God's unfathomable mercy.
So, embedded within Israel's national election (unconditional in its origin yet conditional in its maintenance) is the election of particular Israelites to inherit the promises made to Abraham and his Seed, who are by God's gracious decision, "objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles." Again, Paul is not inventing a novel doctrine of election but drawing on the remnant theology of the prophets:
As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved'" [Hos. 2:23]. "And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they shall be called children of the living God" [Hos. 1:10]. And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively" [Isa. 28:22]. (Rom. 9:23-28)
Paul then turns to the contemporary situation: Israel's unbelief as a nation: "What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works" (vv. 30-32). Regardless of whether it is dismissed as a caricature of the Jewish position, Paul's point itself seems clear enough: God has chosen his people according to his mercy and not their decision or effort, incorporating into the people of God a remnant of both Jews and Gentiles; consequently, the righteousness (justification) and bestowal of the inheritance comes not through ancestry or through our own personal fulfillment of the law's requirements, but through faith in Christ. It is also difficult to see how "works" here could be limited to circumcision and dietary laws, since Israel had in fact fulfilled these: that is why even the Jerusalem church struggled with admitting Gentiles without making them first conform to the Jewish identity markers.
Chapter 10 presses this argument further with its sharp contrast between "the righteousness by faith" and the "righteousness by works." The nation of Israel remains in exile for having violated the terms of the Sinai treaty: Saul the Pharisee and Paul the Apostle would have agreed with each other on this point. The difference is over what to do about it, and with great zeal yet ignorance of the righteousness that comes by promise through faith apart from works, the nation is seeking a renewal of the covenant of law instead of embracing the earlier covenant of promise and its fulfillment in Christ (vv. 1-4). Because this salvation (unlike the national renewal) is based on God's descent rather than our ascent, and is delivered by the preaching of the gospel rather than attained by human striving, the universal scope of the Abrahamic promise is now being realized (vv. 12-13). God finds us; we do not find God (v. 20). "But of Israel he says, 'All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people'" (v. 21).
This, however, is not the last word and the chapter break is well-chosen. Romans 11 begins by bringing us back to the question that began the argument in chapter 9: "I ask, then, has God rejected his people?" The answer is decisive: "By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" (11:1-2). Like the remnant in Elijah's day, Paul and his fellow Jewish Christians are evidence that God is still faithful to Israel (vv. 2b-4). "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (vv. 5-6).
In other words, the confusion of the promise covenant (Abraham), which concerns the election and salvation of individuals, and the law covenant (Sinai), which concerns the nation itself, is behind the assumption that God's word (promise) has failed. While the nation was preserved in the land only as long as it kept its oath made at Sinai, individuals-whether Jew or Gentile, can only reach the true and heavenly land of rest by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Sinai cannot cancel, absorb, or qualify the earlier Abrahamic covenant.
Has God Rejected Ethnic Israel?
Paul rounds out his argument in Romans by applying the double action of God in election and the hardening he described earlier (9:11-18) to the present state of Israel, yielding a remnant despite a more general rejection (11:7-10). But then he asks: "[H]ave they stumbled so as to fall? By no means!" (v. 11). The rhetorical structure indicates a parallel with the first verse of this chapter: "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!" Whatever conclusions can be drawn about Paul's teaching on the current redemptive-historical status of Israel, a simple supercessionism or "replacement" theology is unsupported. The New Testament church does not replace Israel, says Paul.
Reformed interpretation of Scripture has traditionally insisted, especially in opposition to what it has regarded as an Anabaptist (and dispensationalist) disjunction between old and new covenants, the continuity of a single covenant of grace, even to the point of referring to the new covenant church as an extension of the old covenant church. This accords with the language of kahal ("assembly," "congregation"), which the Greek version of the Old Testament translates synagoge or ekklesia, which is then carried over into the New Testament designation for the people of God. Israel is the recipient of the laws and promises, the covenants of Sinai and Abraham, and whatever happens to extend the family is in fact an expansion rather than replacement of Israel. It is through the earthly, physical, ethnic Israel of God that the covenant of grace has unfolded throughout history and now reaches outward to the nations. Yet, Paul adds, it even circles back to include a massive ingathering of ethnic Jews at the end of the age.
God has not rejected Israel as a corporate body-even if the covenant of law (Sinai) can no longer be a basis for its future hope. Rather, in the mystery of God's redemptive-historical purposes, the "stumbling" of Israel is an occasion for the mission to the Gentiles at the present time. Yet it is a stumbling short of falling, "and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!" (vv. 11-12). Notice the future tense! In other words, the story is not finished when we hear about there being "at the present time a remnant chosen by grace" (v. 5). During the period of the Gentile mission, God is making the Jews jealous in order to "save some of them" (v. 14), but also with a further intention: "For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead! If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches are also holy" (vv. 15-16). The tree of Israel is not dead. Even now its boughs are heavy with fruit-bearing branches and even if some natural branches have been broken off for a time to make room for wild grafts, God will fill his tree again with natural branches as well.
It would appear that the "last days" really do bring about the end of exile expected by Second Temple Judaism: not only the resurrection of the dead, with Christ as the first fruits, but the resurrection of Israel as a people. N. T. Wright's insight that the eschatology of exile-and-return is fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ as the True Israel is therefore true, but only part of the story. As the rest of Paul's argument in verses 17 to 24 seems to indicate, there is one tree of life, and it is Israel's menorah. Natural branches may be broken off and replaced with "a wild olive shoot...grafted into their place," but such shoots cannot boast, since "it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you" (vv. 17-18). The natural branches were not broken off simply in order to make room, "but because of their unbelief," and "you stand only through faith. So we do not become proud, but stand in awe" (v. 20). Again, the point is that faith defines everything: If natural branches were broken off because of unbelief, wild shoots will certainly be as well (v. 21). Paul seems even to regard the regrafting of natural branches as somehow more fitting and appropriate than the grafting of the wild branches, since it is, after all, Israel's menorah that is the tree itself (vv. 23-24).
The hardening of Israel at the present is not only partial but is also temporary, "until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved" (v. 25). The disobedience of the Gentiles led to the opportunity for God to show Israel mercy, and now the tables are turned-for the moment (vv. 28-31). Then follows the crucial summary: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (v. 32). No wonder, then, that all that is left to say is in the form of doxology rather than speculation:
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" [Isa. 40:13] "Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?" [Job 35:7] For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen. (vv. 33-36)
Especially given the history of Christian practice toward the Jews, our interpretation of such New Testament arguments is a crucial, as it is sensitive, matter. While Luther's earlier position sharply criticized the treatment of the Jews by the medieval church, his disappointment with their failure to embrace the gospel recovered in the Reformation engendered a deep hostility. The Jews were ranked alongside Moslems and the Church of Rome as enemies of the gospel. Calvin, on the other hand, was more favorable to Jews at least in part because of his more positive treatment of the Old Testament, Moses, and the law. "Yet, despite the great obstinacy with which they continue to wage war against the gospel," writes Calvin, "we must not despise them, while we consider that, for the sake of the promise, God's blessing still rests among them" (4.16.15). Further, as David Holwerda demonstrates, "Calvin continued to hold to a future conversion of Jewish Israel."
God's election of a people as a gift to his Son was made "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4), "before the twins [Jacob and Esau] had done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose in election would stand, not because of works, but by his call" (Rom. 9:11). The plan that is now unfolding in history was "predestined before all ages," as are the individuals who are included in that communion (Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:23; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:4-11; 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:2) and this plan cannot be thwarted by the vicissitudes of history. It is not merely the church that is chosen collectively, but the individuals who comprise that church (2 Thess. 2:13; Matt. 24:22; Rom. 8:33; Rom. 11:7; 1 Tim. 5:21; Titus 1:1), and their election is not conditioned on anything in them, even foreseen faith and repentance (John 15:16; Acts 13:48; Rom. 9:16; Titus 3:5), since even these are gifts rather than conditions of election (Eph. 2:5-10).
While Israel as a nation was elected as a trustee or guardian of God's purposes for the world, the election and redemption of "men and women from every tribe, kindred, tongue, people and nation...to be a kingdom of priests to our God" (Rev. 5:9) transcends all ethnic identities. In God's eternal election, the barrier between Jew and Gentile established in history does not exist, and when the Son appeared in whom these are chosen, that dividing wall was dismantled within history itself. Yet until the fullness of the Jews is added to the fullness of the Gentiles, the tree of Israel remains incomplete. A remnant of Jews and Gentiles will be gathered in Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, because they have been chosen by God from eternity to constitute a new humanity, "to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6).
Therefore, just as the covenants of Sinai and Zion must be carefully distinguished, the election of the "Jerusalem that is below" must be seen as distinct from the election of that "Jerusalem that is above." Each has its own significant vocation in the economy of redemption. It is worthwhile once again to listen to Jewish theologians and exegetes in order to compare and contrast their understanding of the differences with Christian views of election. According to Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod, God's election of Israel would be arrogant if it were the self-election of the people. "As it is," however, "it is a sign of God's absolute sovereignty which is not bound by human conceptions of fairness." After citing examples (Luke 3:8, Rom. 9:6-8, the latter harking back to Hosea 1:10), Wyschogrod notes,
The attitude of the New Testament is quite clear. Jews labor under the illusion that they have some sort of advantage in being descended from Abraham. In so thinking, they are thoroughly mistaken. Being descended from Abraham is no advantage whatsoever. God is able to declare anyone a child of Abraham ("God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham"). And Paul confirms this by pointing out that not all of Abraham's children were of Israel. Isaac was of Israel but Esau was not. So being a physical descendant of Abraham does not make one a child of promise. By quoting the verses from Hosea, Paul says that God can take a people who is not chosen and make it chosen. God is not bound by genealogical considerations... This is presumably the church which is not a natural family characterized by descent from a common ancestor but an association of persons from many peoples united by a common faith.
Although he rejects it, Wyschogrod understands the New Testament better, at least on this point, than many Christian interpreters.
As Israel's exile testified, God had not reneged on his promise; Israel had reneged on hers. This point is as clear in the prophets as it is in Paul. God would still fulfill the purposes of his eternal election, however, and the Abrahamic promise envisioned this as the blessing that would come to all peoples through the Seed of Abraham and Sarah. As with Eden, there is no way back to Sinai, but this is actually good news, since no one could be saved according to the righteousness of the law. The only way to be saved, and therefore, to belong to the true Israel of God, is to be "in Christ." At Mount Sinai, Israel responded to the conditional terms as one person: "All this we will do!", yet broke their covenant oath. At Mount Calvary, the True Israel, who had fulfilled the terms throughout his life, cried out, "It is finished!"
At the Synod of Jerusalem, this christocentric interpretation of election and redefinition of Israel in line with the prophetic texts was officially adopted and it was Peter who gave such eloquent testimony to this interpretation that Gentile believers, no less than Jews, are justified by grace through faith without any distinction (Acts 15:8-11). Circumcision counts for nothing: everything turns on faith in Christ, announced by the gospel (Rom. 2:17-29).
The attitude we must have toward ethnic Jews is that of Paul the Jewish apostle to the Gentiles, who would have willingly born Israel's "anathema" in her place (Rom. 10:1-3). At the same time, we must remember that this anathema is not over Jews as Jews, but over all of humanity apart from Christ. If we really follow through with the Pauline logic (maintained elsewhere in the New Testament, as it was seminally in the prophets), there is no more guarantee that a particular visible church that bears the name Christian will not fail to have its candlestick removed should it live by any principle other than faith in Christ. It is therefore not ultimately a question of whether one is a Jew or a Christian in terms of outward organization, but of whether one is "inwardly circumcised"-that is, buried and raised with Christ. Nothing that exists apart from him-even that which calls itself Christian, can live, and nothing that is in him can die. Jesus is not only the federal head and mediator of the covenant; he is in his very person "a covenant to the people" (Isa. 42:6).
My experience some years ago with Reformed Christians growing out of my first interest in Francis Schaeffer, who apparently was not exactly a five point Calvinist, is that the Reformed people as a group are not much interested in end time Bible prophecy. Even now, few of them would understand about an end time spiritual conflict which now appears to involve a return to the Old Covenant while claiming to have their version of Jesus Christ, a position opposed by a Remnant, who as Jude says, contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints.
The Reformed camp, if it is true to historical Calvinist teachings, should not "theologically" be allied with the dispensationalists, plus the Hebrew Roots, Sacred name and Messianic Judaism movements. But the reformed people as a group will not be on the side of a Remnant who upholds the Gospel and maintains that physical Israel is not the chosen people, but Christian believers are. In fact, most in the Reformed churches, according to my experience with some of them about 15 years ago, do not really believe in a tribulation period marked by a spiritual conflict, and, for them, there is to be no spiritual conflict in which an apostate church defends itself against a smaller group who are led by the Lord.
Revelation 17: 3-11, Revelation 18: 4, Revelation 11,and Revelation 12, Ezekiel 5: 1-12, Zechariah 13: 8-9 and the several New Testament texts on the departure from the true Gospel, especially II Thessalonians 2; 3-4, are not viewed by most Reformed people as predicting a great apostasy in the churches, or supporting the existence of a faithful Remnant, or a spiritual conflict.
Not all of those in the reformed camp agree on this issue.
There is a new book coming out from reformed authors that offers "a better way"...I intend to read it.
It's called, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants...and it's by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Here is a description..."Many theological discussions come to an impasse when parties align behind either covenant theology or dispensationalism. But Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum now propose a significant biblical theology of the covenants that avoids the extremes of both classical systems and holds the potential to break the theological impasse. Kingdom through Covenant is not a system-driven work, but a careful exposition of the covenants as key to the narrative plot structure of the whole Bible.
Kingdom through Covenant emphasizes the importance of the covenant concept throughout Scripture, showing that crucial theological differences can be resolved by understanding how the biblical covenants unfold and relate to one another. Rather than looking at covenant as the center of biblical theology, the authors show how the covenants form the backbone of Scripture and the key to understanding its overarching story. They ultimately show that the covenant concept forms a solid platform for systematic theology.
By incorporating the latest available research from the ancient Near East and examining implications of their work for Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and hermeneutics�Gentry and Wellum present a thoughtful and viable alternative to both covenant theology and dispensationalism."
Here is an article about it from Justin Taylor at gospelcoalition.com....
>Peter J. Gentry (Old Testament professor at Southern Seminary) and Stephen J. Wellum (systematic theology professor at Southern) have co-authored a groundbreaking book, offering a robust and detailed biblical theology of the covenants, entitled Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Crossway will publish it in June. Amazon is currently selling it for 51% off, though I imagine the discount will drop once it�s actually published.
My prediction is that among serious students of God�s word this will become a much-discussed and debated book. I suspect their �progressive covenantalism� (which I think is right) will change some paradigms, similar to the way in which progressive dispensationalism has made dispensationalism more tethered to biblical theology. At nearly 850 pages, virtually no stone is left unturned as Gentry works through each of the covenants in painstaking detail, and Wellum frames the book in terms of theology, theological systems, typology, hermeneutics, and implications for the church and the Christian life.
Here are some of the commendations:
�Gentry and Wellum offer a third way, a via media, between covenant theology and dispensationalism, arguing that both of these theological systems are not informed sufficiently by biblical theology. Certainly we cannot understand the scriptures without comprehending �the whole counsel of God,� and here we find incisive exegesis and biblical theology at its best. This book is a must read and will be part of the conversation for many years to come.�
�Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
�Kingdom through Covenant is hermeneutically sensitive, exegetically rigorous, and theologically rich�a first rate biblical theology that addresses both the message and structure of the whole Bible from the ground up. Gentry and Wellum have produced what will become one of the standard texts in the field. For anyone who wishes to tread the path of biblical revelation, this text is a faithful guide.�
�Miles V. Van Pelt, Alan Belcher Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages and Director, Summer Institute for Biblical Languages, Reformed Theological Seminary
�Gentry and Wellum have provided a welcome addition to the current number of books on biblical theology. What makes their contribution unique is the marriage of historical exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic theology. Kingdom through Covenant brims with exegetical insights, biblical theological drama, and sound systematic theological conclusions. Particularly important is the viable alternative they offer to the covenantal and dispensational hermeneutical frameworks. I enthusiastically recommend this book!�
�Stephen Dempster, Stuart E. Murray Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Atlantic Baptist University
Matthew Claridge at Credo Magazine has a very helpful and informative interview with the authors about what they are seeking to accomplish�first with Wellum, then with Gentry.
Here is one of the interactions with Gentry:
In a summary fashion, what do you think is the most distinctive aspect of your approach to the covenants in contrast to other standard �covenantal� readings such as Covenant Theology?
What I think we have been able to do is, first of all, take the basic passages in the Scriptures that deal with the major covenants and given them a completely fresh exegesis based upon four things: 1) looking at the cultural setting; 2) looking at the linguistic data; 2) looking at the literary structures in the text; and 4) always keeping an eye on the relationship of the passage with the metanarrative or plot line of Scripture.
When I look at the books out there on the covenants, there hasn�t been any fresh exegesis of the key passages in over 40 years. For example, scholars in the school of Covenant Theology continue to refer to the work of Meredith Kline, but a great deal of more information has been developed in the last several decades that requires a new, fresh approach. There has been tremendous advances in our understanding of the cultural setting of the ANE (economic, political, social, religious background and historical events) and in the area of linguistic analysis, particularly in the field of �discourse grammar.� In terms of literary structures, I have read most of the books on the market today unpacking covenantal structures, and I don�t see a rigorous interaction with the shape of the text.
Secondly, we have zeroed in on many passages in the Bible that discuss the relationships between one or two covenants together and explain the implications of this phenomena for a whole-Bible theology. If we collect these passages and pay attention to them, then we are enabled to put the covenants together in a structure that comes from the Bible and not from our own imagination. The problem with both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, is that ultimately, the meta-narrative they are providing is not the meta-narrative of the Bible. It owes too much to a story outside the Scripture and to the times in which they were developed. Our goal is to uncover a methodology that will tell me if my meta-narrative is more true to the Bible than another.
Today, there are many books available dealing with �four views� of one thing or another. The contributors typically provide their �view� out of how they put the Bible together and not simply out of collecting proof-text. Unless we find a way to adjudicate whether one metanarrative is better than another or truer to Scripture than another, we will not get beyond this impasse. At the end of the chapters to which I contribute in Kingdom Through Covenant, I am careful to relate the discussion to the rest of the biblical story and covenants.
Here is the an interview of Wellum about the book....
The preface mentions several other recent works that have attempted a �whole Bible� theology. What makes Kingdom through Covenant distinct from these other recent contributions?
Wellum - Let me suggest two ways KTC is distinct. First, it argues that central and foundational to reading the Bible on its own terms is getting right the unfolding nature of the biblical covenants and their interrelationship to each other as they culminate in the coming of Christ and the new covenant. In our view, biblical theology is not simply about unpacking biblical themes across the canon and doing it in a variety of ways. Rather, biblical theology is a hermeneutical discipline which seeks to understand God�s unfolding plan the way the Bible itself unfolds that plan. To be �biblical� in our interpretation and application of Scripture entails that we �put together� the pieces of Scripture the way the Bible does. It is our conviction that properly placing the biblical covenants in their own redemptive-historical context�seeing how they are interrelated and how they unfold the biblical story�is central to this task since it is central to how the Bible unpacks the whole counsel of God. Not all books on biblical or systematic theology do this.
Second, KTC is distinct from other works in that it offers in more detail than previous works, a true via media between dispensationalism and its varieties and covenant theology. Even though we are certainly not the first to articulate such a mediating position, KTC probably does it in the most comprehensive way to date, even though much more work has to be done in the future.
In your initial chapter you coin a new term to describe the theological system you are developing: �progressive covenantalism.� What do you want conveyed by this term?
Wellum - In teaching KTC, students often ask: �what do you call this �new� position that is neither dispensational theology nor what we would associate with Reformed, covenant theology?� I have struggled to answer such a question since any label you give often can be misunderstood. I say in the book that our view is a species of �New Covenant Theology� but unfortunately that label can mean many things to many people. Teaching at a Baptist seminary I often humorously describe the position as �Baptist theology� but of course, given that Baptists differ widely on a whole host of issues and that some Baptists are dispensational and some more covenantal, that label will not work either. So, a student at Southern Seminary, Richard Lucas, suggested �progressive covenantalism� which has affinities to �progressive dispensationalism� but also distinguishes our view from it. By adopting this label, we are trying to convey the fact that to grasp God�s unfolding plan and thus the metanarrative of Scripture, we must attend to the biblical covenants. In addition, we must not only understand the covenants in a synchronic way, we must think through how the biblical covenants unfold the biblical storyline diachronically. Given that God reveals himself to us over time, and Scripture does not come to us all at once, it is absolutely necessary to trace out God�s plan from creation to new creation by unpacking how the biblical covenants reveal in a progressive, unfolding way who our Triune covenant Lord is, and most importantly, how all the biblical covenants find their culmination, telos, and fulfillment in our Lord Jesus Christ.
�Covenantalism� stresses that apart from the biblical covenants we will not understand fully the plan of God and the glory of what our Lord Jesus has accomplished in his inauguration of the New Covenant. �Progressive� emphasizes that God�s one, eternal plan which we now come to know and participate in due to his sovereign and gracious actions on the stage of human history, has come to us over time and that it is crucial to think through the �before� and �after� in God�s plan centered in the biblical covenants if we are going to properly interpret and apply the Bible to us today.
Typology is clearly an integral component of the promise-fulfillment pattern in Scripture. How does tethering typology to the covenants help mitigate against rogue figural exegesis (e.g., Scarlet thread of Rahab points to Jesus; Absalom caught in a tree points to Jesus; tent pegs in Tabernacle point to Jesus, etc.)?
Wellum - Most people admit that typology is one means by which God unfolds his plan and brings all of his sovereign purposes to pass in Christ. As various persons, events, and institutions are introduced into history, they point beyond themselves and find their fulfillment in Christ, with then further application to us as Christ�s people. In working through the biblical covenants we were struck with the fact that most, if not all, of the typological patterns of Scripture are organically related to the covenants. So, if we are talking about various persons�Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, priests, and so on�each of these persons is developed covenantally. The same may be said about various events such as the Exodus, or institutions such as the priesthood and the tabernacle/temple, kingship, and so on; these too are unpacked across the Bible�s storyline in relation to the biblical covenants. What also struck us is that in tethering typology to the covenants this provides the needed biblical warrant for these typological patterns which avoids rogue figural interpretation. By thinking through how these typological patterns are developed covenantally, we discover better the intertexual development which is crucial in providing proper biblical warrant for typology.
Another important piece of hermeneutical method you are using is the �three horizons.� Could you unpack for us this phrase and how it provides a �thicker� method of reading Scripture?
Wellum - The �three horizons� is not new to me; in fact, I borrowed it from Richard Lints who largely was indebted to the Westminster tradition of biblical theology which has come to us through the pioneering work of Geerhardus Vos and those who developed his thought in subsequent years. The �three horizons� is simply seeking to do justice to the fact that Scripture, and thus God�s revelation of his redemptive plan, does not come to us all at once. God�s redemptive plan and revelation occurs over time and given this fact, it is crucial that we interpret any text of Scripture first in terms of its own immediate context (textual horizon), then in terms of where that text is in God�s unfolding plan (epochal horizon), and then finally in light of the entire canon and the inauguration of the new covenant in our Lord Jesus Christ (canonical horizon).
To read Scripture in this way, as my old professor Kevin Vanhoozer used to stress, is not merely an interpretive option; it is the interpretive way that best corresponds to what Scripture is, namely God�s unified, inspired Word as progressively given to us. Unless we read Scripture this way, we will rip texts out of their context and fail to see how those texts reach their terminus in Christ. We will make Scripture to be nothing more than a �wax nose� which can be bent at will, instead of seeking to read and apply Scripture according to God�s ultimate plan and intent. I am convinced that the �three horizons� allow for a proper theological reading of Scripture which is true to the Bible and thus a thicker reading of the entire canon of Scripture. As the �three horizons� are applied to our interpretation of the biblical covenants, what we attempt to do is to interpret each biblical covenant first in its own immediate context, then locate that covenant in terms of what preceded it in God�s plan, and then finally to ask how all of the biblical covenants unfold and unpack God�s redemptive plan which has come to fulfillment in Christ. Until we do this, it is our conviction that we will fail properly to grasp both the continuity and discontinuity of God�s glorious plan of salvation and its application to us, living where we do in redemptive history.
Could you explain for us why you think viewing the covenants as either �conditional� or �unconditional� is problematic and actually deflates the dramatic tension of Redemptive History?
Wellum - A common way of dividing up the covenants is in terms of �conditional� (bilateral covenant, suzerain-vassal) or �unconditional� (unilateral, grant covenant). As we worked through the biblical covenants we discovered that this distinction is not only difficult to maintain in text after text; in fact, to divide the covenants in this way really begins to miss one of the main points of the storyline of Scripture. No doubt, it is only because God takes the initiative to save, makes promises which he alone fulfills, that redemption comes to us at all. Yet, as God created humans in his image to be his vice-regents, and as all the biblical covenants involve God�s relationship to his image bearers, God demands nothing less than obedience from us, and hence the stress on the �conditionality� of the covenants.
Whether we are speaking of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, David�God demands obedience from all of his creatures and particularly his covenant mediators and partners. But, given sin, this is where the problem begins to arise and the tension begins to increase. Our covenant Lord demands obedience from us, but we do not render it. God promises to save and to unilaterally act, but he also promises to bring about redemption through an obedient �son.� However from Adam on, where is such an obedient �son� to be found? God�s promise of salvation, all the way from Gen 3:15 on anticipates the provision of a human who will undo what Adam did, but as each covenant mediator walks on the stage of human history, they all fail. Yet, God�s promises will not fail, and as the covenants unfold it becomes more clear that our glorious promise-making and promise�keeping God will fulfill his oaths through the provision of a greater, better, and more glorious obedient Son who does not fail. In such a provision of this Son and his crowning and effective cross work for us, we have brought together God�s unilateral promise to save in and through the obedient Son of God. In Christ and him alone, we have the Lord himself who saves but as God the Son incarnate. These grand and wonderful truths, as well as our incredible Redeemer, are all underscored better if we let the biblical covenants unfold themselves in this way, which no doubt creates tension�a tension which is ultimately resolved in Christ and the inauguration of the glory of the new covenant.
Explain the difference between your view of the Genesis account as a �covenant with Creation� rather than a �covenant of works.� Is it not true that there was no grace offered before the fall, only the condition of obedience?
Wellum - Our problem with the �covenant of works� designation is primarily over what it can mistakenly convey if we are not careful. Many people view the �covenant of works� as a testing of Adam who, if he obeys, wins favor or merit before God and is thus potentially confirmed in righteousness. Our problem with this is that it does not adequately convey that all God�s dealings with his creatures are gracious; that Adam was in favor with God prior to the Fall; and that it wrongly pits obedience vs. grace, and so on. No doubt, given the entire plan of God, what takes place in Eden was not God�s ultimate plan for the human race, yet Adam, as the covenant head and representative of the human race, was in favor with God and thus at rest, yet had everything to lose by his disobedience. So, in the end, it is not what the �covenant of works� affirms; it is more in terms of what it does not stress and present in a more positive manner. Other than that, we do think that there is a lot of truth in saying that Adam, as our covenant head, was called to obey, and that in his disobedience, brought sin into this world and all of its disastrous consequences upon the entire human race. It is for this reason that another and better Adam must come, God the Son incarnate, who will undo what the first man did, by obeying perfectly in his life and death, and thus securing for us eternal salvation.
I believe one of the most striking facets of your argument is how indebted both Dispensational and covenant theology are to an inordinate focus on the Abrahamic Covenant. Could you tease out for us this common line of dependence?
Wellum - As we began to think through how dispensationalism and covenant theology �put together� the biblical covenants, it was fascinating to see that both appeal to the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant yet for different reasons. On the one hand, dispensational theology appeals to the �unconditional� promise of land given to Abraham, which they believe, is only fulfilled non-typologically to ethnic, national Israel in the future millennial age. Regardless of the lack of discussion in the NT on the land promise, they argue that given the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant, the land promise must still be fulfilled in the future precisely because it is an unconditional promise. When covenant theology disagrees with dispensationalism on this point by viewing the land as typological of the new creation and ultimately brought to fulfillment in Christ who ushers in the new creation, dispensational theology charges covenant theology with reading the NT back on the OT without sufficiently doing justice to the unconditional OT promise.
On the other hand, covenant theology appeals to the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic covenant��to you and your children��as unchanged throughout redemptive history, and it is on this basis that they make their covenantal argument for infant baptism. In a similar fashion to dispensationalism, regardless of the carry over between circumcision and baptism in the NT, and regardless of the fact that there is not one example of infant baptism practiced in the NT, covenant theology argues on the basis of the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant that one must not read the NT back on the OT at this point. Even though dispensationalism and covenant theology differ at certain points, they both appeal to the Abrahamic covenant to make their points and follow the same hermeneutic. For us, this not only illustrates how important it is to understand properly the biblical covenants, but it also reminds us that one must not treat the Abrahamic covenant in an isolated fashion from the entire canon and particularly its fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant.
One thing that is confusing for me personally is determining if there is a distinction between the role of covenant �mediator� and covenant �partner� and whether that has any bearing on how we put together the covenants. For example, in the Mosaic covenant, it seems fairly clear that Moses is the mediator of the covenant but not exactly the partner in the covenant�Israel as a nation fills that role {or, you can even say angels were the mediators, Acts 7.38, Gal. 3.19). In all the other OT covenants, it seems this distinction is not as clear-cut. God makes a covenant with Adam and his seed, with Noah and his seed, with Abraham and his seed, with David and his seed.
Wellum - The relationship between covenant �mediator� and �partner� is not always easy to discern. To understand this relationship correctly one must work through the biblical covenants carefully and also remember the corporate structures of the Bible. For example, the covenant of creation is mediated through Adam as covenant head and representative of the human race, yet the covenant partners are all of us, as image-bearers, and �sons� of God in the representative and image sense. When one comes to the Abrahamic covenant, we can say that Abraham mediates it, yet it is made with his seed in a number of ways, uniquely with Isaac and then the entire nation of Israel. God demands obedience from all the parties involved, but we do have one who stands as the mediator of the covenant in a unique way. When it comes to Moses, we can view him as the covenant mediator, but once the covenant is up and running, various leaders in Israel, especially prophets, priests, and kings function as mediators of various aspects of the covenant. Israel as the �son� of God, and in this sense another �Adam� are the covenant partners, but the entire old covenant is tribal and representative in its structure�thus mediated�which is first anticipated in the unique role of Moses. Something similar could be said about the Davidic covenant, as the Davidic king in a very important way becomes the idealized Israel and representative of the nation. One must also remember that running through the entire covenants are developing typological patterns which ultimately point beyond themselves to Christ. So the balance between covenant �mediators� and �partners� is throughout the biblical covenants, which in a wonderful way, points us forward to Christ.
Covenant theology and Dispensational theology draw two different conclusions from the New Covenant. The former collapses Israel into the church and the latter excludes Israel from the church. Where�s the error here?
Wellum - We believe the error is ultimately found in Christology. That may seem strange so let me explain. As one works through the biblical covenants, all of the covenants and their mediators find their fulfillment in Christ. In Christ he is the last Adam, Abraham�s true seed, the true Israel who obeys completely, and David�s greater Son who does what no Davidic king ever did. In this way, all the promises to �Israel� as the �son� of God and typological pattern of Christ are fulfilled. Israel, in her role, loses nothing but finds her fulfillment perfectly in Christ. Dispensational theology often fails to recognize this point and thus does not see how Israel as a nation is the type which points forward to Christ as the antitype, and that the church now in relationship to Christ receives all the promises of God in and through her covenant head. In this way, dispensational theology fragments Israel and church because she does not unite them properly in Christ.
Covenant theology, in our view, grasps the Israel to Christ relationship better, but then does not see properly how the genealogical principle is transformed as Christ, the new covenant head, brings all the previous covenant mediators to their end, and stands as the head of his believing people. She does not also see that the covenant communities are also different, due to the difference between the old and new covenants. In this way, covenant theology moves from Israel to the church too fast, without first seeing how the covenants find their consummation in Christ, the true Israel, and thus the newness and greatness of what Jesus has won as our new covenant head, including the difference in the nature and structure of the covenant communities. In the end, we believe that the root problem of both systems is that they do not sufficiently trace out how the biblical covenants unfold, how all the types and patterns of the OT are fulfilled in Christ, and thus the better nature of the covenant our Lord Jesus has inaugurated.
How does the theology of man leaning to his own understanding that has been quoted here answer the question of how do various Reformed groups interpret these scriptures?
Well first of all they are reformed...so I think that would have some relevance. Second of all, you claim they lean on their own understand simply because you disagree with their view. That's no different than me saying you lean on your own understanding.
Calvinists on CDFF, and most others I have encountered, are not interested in end time Bible prophecy, and are most interested in scriptures which they can relate to their theology. Like dispensartionalism, modern day Calvinism is theology focused, not scripture focused. You could say Calvinist theology is scholasticism of the 21st century.
There should be no compromise or consensus through dialogue with the positions presented here. So there is no point in staying in this argument.
WILL ALL ISRAEL BE SAVED BY THE END OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION??
Luke 21:24: Jesus says, �Jerusalem shall be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are complete.� The Times of the Gentiles was from AD 70 to June 7th, 1967 when the Jews again gained complete control of Jerusalem after 1897 years. In 1948 the Jordanian Gentiles destroyed 34 of the 35 Jewish Synagogues in Jerusalem and kicked out almost all the Jews. Obama would like Israel to return to its 1948 borders.
During the Great Tribulation Moses and Elijah will most likely witness miraculously to people in the uttermost parts of the earth in all 6,000 languages. Presently the Bible has been translated into about 2,000 languages from the inspired Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and faith comes from hearing or reading the sword of the spirit which is the Word of God. The Bible still has not been translated into about 4,000 languages and Rev 5:9b and Rev 7:9,13,14 must be completely fulfilled. Surely the courageous tribulation saints will help Moses and Elijah spread God's Word. They will do a fantastic job since according to Rev 7:9,14 there will be a great multitude from EVERY TRIBE AND LANGUAGE who will be �washed in the Blood of the Lamb� during the Great Tribulation.
Rev 6:9-11: When He {Jesus} opened the 5th seal, I saw the souls of those who had been slain {Just like Jesus} because of the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, �How long until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?� The each of them was given a *WHITE ROBE*, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed. Rev 7:9,13,14,15a,17a: �After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from *EVERY* NATION, TRIBE, PEOPLE AND LANGUAGE, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb {Jesus}. They were wearing *WHITE ROBES*�Then one of the {24} elders {Rev 4:4} asked me, �These in *WHITE ROBES*�who are they and where did they come from?�� And he said, �These are they who have come out of the Great Tribulation; {Martyrs just like Jesus} they have washed their robes and made them WHITE in the *BLOOD OF THE LAMB* {Jesus}. They are before the throne of God and serve him day and night... The Lamb {Jesus} at the center of the throne will be their Shepherd.� {See Rev 12:11 & Rev 13:8-10}
This passage in Rev 7:9 above shows that the Great Tribulation will be mainly for Christians in *EVERY Gentile nation and not just Jacob�s Jewish trouble which absolutely contradicts the main thesis of the pre-trib fairy tale. Revelation 14:13: Then I heard a voice from heaven say {During the Great Trib}, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them." Rev 12:11: �They {THE TRIBULATION MARTYRS} overcame him {Satan} by the *BLOOD OF THE LAMB* and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.�
Revelation 7:3,4: The angel said, �Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God,� Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the {12} tribes of Israel.
This event occurred just before the land and sea were harmed by the first 6 trumpet plagues in Rev chapters 8 & 9. Also occurring just before the first 6 trumpet plagues will be the scene in heaven above of martyrs from every nation in Rev 7:9-18. So it is completely obvious that the 144,000 Jews did NOT participate in the evangelizing of the Gentiles from every nation in the world. There are many who believe that the 144,000 Jews will then evangelize Jews through out the world and possibly only Jews will be saved during the rest of the Great Tribulation since Gentiles from every nation of the world will already be saved. According to Zechariah 12;10; 13:8,9: Two-thirds of the Jews will be struck down and perish but one-third will call on my name and will say, �The Lord is our God.�
Presently there are approximately 15 million Jews and about 2 % or 30,000 are Christians. During the Great Tribulation 10 million Jews will die and 5 million will be saved which is and additional 4 million 970 thousand if 30 thousand are now Christians.
Romans 11:25-29: 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 Gentiles has come in **{As per Rev 7:9,14 above}. ***AND SO ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED***, as it is written: {In Jeremiah 31:33,34} �The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob {Israel}. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.� As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned they are loved on account of the patriarchs {Moses, Abraham, David ,Joseph, Isaiah, Elijah etc etc etc}, for God's gifts and His call are irrevocable. {Read Romans 11:11-32 and Hebrews 11:39-40}
Acts 1:6-8: The Jewish disciples asked Jesus, �Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel??� Jesus said to them: �It is not for you to know the times and dates the Father has set by His own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and to the ends of the earth.!!� Matthew 24:14: Jesus says {During thr Great Tribulation} �This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to **ALL NATIONS** and **THEN** the **END** will come!�
God also inspired 40 Jewish men to write every Word in God's Word in both the OT and NT. Jesus was 50 % Jewish and is called the King of the Jews 12 times in the NT and the 12 Apostles including Paul were all Jewish who brought the Gospel to the Gentiles in the 1st Century. The Israelites are called Jews 80 times in the OT beginning with the book of Esther about 600 BC and the Israelites are called Jews over 200 times in the NT.
Acts 2:5: �Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.� And on the day of Pentecost 3,000 Jews were saved as per Acts 2:5,14,41. John 4:22b: Jesus says, "Salvation is from the Jews.!" Matthew 2:1,2: Wise men from the East asked, �Where is the One who has been born King of the Jews?� Matthew 27:11: Pilate asked Jesus, �Are you the King of the Jews?� �Yes it is as you say,� Jesus replied!
God said to Abraham, in Genesis 17:8: �The whole land of Canaan I will be give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you.�
Quotes from Obama on May 20th, 2011: �Israel must learn do defend itself **BY ITSELF**!!� �Israel must return to **PRE-1967 BORDERS**!!� Nations from all over the world have heartily agreed with King Obama's 2 statements including the European Union, Russia and the United nations. Obama has also stated that he does not have to abide by the War Powers Act or the Constitution in declaring war thus making Obama a King with the power to make war against anyone he desires as long as he desires!
