The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Continuity of the OT believing Israel and the chur

Hi people

I need some help
Look at below quote from a dispy friend of me.

I do not know how to answer all that apart from using the quote from Isaiah: "the secret things are of the Lord"
I have no proper explanation for all the OT prohesies regarding Israel, but I do believe that the NT church is the continuation, renewed for sure and expanded, of the OT believers of which John the Baptist possibly was the last representative.

Your help and comments would be greatly appreciated as well as any information on books and articles that address these issues.

in His grace
Jim

What your friend has failed to see and understand is what is called the now, but not yet aspect of prophecy. It is "Now" because Jesus has inaugurated the Kingdom, like the planting of the mustard seed of the parable in Luke 13:19. But then it is still "Not Yet" because the kingdom not yet fulfilled. In the analogy this is because the mustard seed has not yet grown into the tree. This all has to do with the inauguration, continuation, and consummation (ICC) of the Kingdom of God. I would suggest going to IIIMill and looking for articles on the ICC and the now, but not yet aspect of prophecy. Here is an old diagram I posted some time ago: Now, but not yet.

Jim,

The Israel of God

Does the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob love the Jews? Yes. Does he have a plan for the Jews? Yes, it is the same plan he promised to Adam, the seed of the Woman, the same plan he promised to Abraham, "the Seed." That seed is one: Christ. He is the Holy One of Israel, he is the Israel of God. He did what Adam would not do. He did what stubborn Israel would and could not do. He served the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.

Most of the Jews, however, were not looking for a Savior. They were looking for a king. Jesus is King, but he earned his throne by his obedience and death, and that is not what they wanted. They wanted glory, power and an earthly, political, theocratic, this-worldly kingdom. Jesus has established his kingdom, through the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. This kingdom may not be as exciting as ruling from Jerusalem during an earthly golden age, it may not sell many books or fill seats in movie theaters, but the world never has found the Jesus of Scripture very interesting, that's why he's stumbling block to Zionist Jews and a foolishness to Greeks. To Christians, however, he is the Christ, "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1.24).

Gal 6.16

Given this background, it should not surprise us at all when the Apostles call both Jews and Gentiles "the Israel of God." This is Paul's language to the mixed Galatian congregation.

1 Peter 2.9-10

The Apostle Peter uses the same sort of language to describe the mostly Gentile congregations of Asia Minor to whom he wrote, saying, "Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

Hebrews 8.8-10

According to the writer to the Hebrews, those who call on the name of Christ are the "House of Israel." Everyone who has trusted Christ is an heir of the promises of the New Covenant.

The True Israel of God

"Racial Israelites" who disobey God are, by the teachings of the Old and New Testaments, deposed from whatever blessings they may formerly have been entitled to by racial descent. In other words, those who are Jews by race only are not Jews at all in the eyes of God.

The Christian Church (and we do not mean any particular denomination of Christians by this term) is now the Israel of God, according to the teachings of the New Testament. The Church is seen to be Israel by the following facts:

• the Old Testament titles of Israel are the New Testament titles of the Christian Church, and;
• Old Testament passages which clearly and indisputably refer to Israel are quoted by the Apostles of Christ as referring to the Christian Church.

Romans 2:28,29

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Read Hebrews 11 and you will see a list of those Old Testament patriarchs of the faith who were looking forward to Christ's coming. They having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. (v.39,40)

These verses assert both the redemptive-historical difference between Old Testament and New Testament periods, and the unity of the people of God in both eras. Though the Old Testament belivers lived by faith they were not privileged to witness on earth the fulfillment of the great promise of God. Nevertheless, they too participate in the benefits of Christ's high-priestly work, and, along with the new covenant saints, they are made perfect. Those of the old and new eras together await the perfection that will appear only at the Second Coming.


Wes

May I attempt to help, albeit only as a layman.

The problem seems to be that there is supposedly a period of future earthly (historical, pre judgement) blessings promised to Israel. These do not seem to have occurred.

Let me suggest several ways that this could be construed.

a. like your friend, one could hold that Israel is not the church, in which case one could either argue that:

1. The prophecies of blessing were wrong
2. Israel recieved the prophecies of earthly blessing
(in the OT)
3. The prophesies of earthly blessing were really
symbolic prophecies of spiritual realities either:
I). Already occuring in the OT
II). To occur later than the propesies but before the
end of Israel.
III).To occur to dead Israelites, in heaven, before
the judgement.
IV). To only be realised after the judgement and the
end of the world
4. The prophesies were conditional, and Israel forfeited
them.
5. the promises of Earthly blessing were trew, and Israel
will in the future return to existence and be blessed
with the things promised.

b. One could instead argue that the church is Israel, as Reformed Thinkers tend to, particularly based on the NT references to the Abrahamic Covenant, as well as several arguments previously listed. In this case one could either argue that:

1. The prophecies of blessing were wrong
2. Israel received the prophecies of earthly blessing
(in the OT).
3. Israel/the church received the earthly blessing
(in the NT or shortly afterwards)
4. The prophesies of earthly blessing were really
symbolic prophecies of spiritual realities either:
I). Already occuring in the OT/NT/all of history
II). To occur in the NT church (ie symbolic language
for the reality of the New Covenant).
III). To occur in the NT church (ie symbolic language
for general blessings that Christians receive,
but the actual historical blessings don't match
the form of language they are portrayed in,
which was 'apocalyptic' language).
III).To occur to dead believers, in heaven, before
the judgement.
IV). To only be realised after the judgement and the
end of the world
5. The prophesies were conditional, and the Church
forfeited them.
6. the promises of Earthly blessing were trew, and the
Church will receive these Earthly blessings in the
future before the judgement.

We should also note that not all prophecies have to be interpreted in the same manner. some may be symbolic or figurative and others not. Some literal promises may already be fulfilled and others not.

In regards to seeming promises of the rule of Christ over nations, and all nations serving the church, one could either argue that this is figurative, or to be realised in heaven, views generally considered Amil, or one can argue that it is a literal prophecy about future history before the judgement, in which case one is asked if the blessings accrue to an Israel that is the Church (Postmill) or to an Israel that is not the Church (Dispie and Premill).

Most Reformed Theologians have either been Amil or Postmill.
Whilst the Westminster Assembly seems to have been Postmill
(cf larger cat) most current Reformed scholars are Amil. I am a Postie, and take the promises of the nations covenanting to Christ literally, but many good Reformed men take both sides of the issue.

Premil dispies seem to particularly struggle in the fact that they posit that Christ's reign must be a bodily reign, and so is not occurring now. As such he must return before the judgement to rule on earth for the thousand years. This struggles with the facts that the reign of Prince Messiah in OT prophecy is linked to his exaltation that began at the start of the new covenant, and linked to his present kingdom which is the church, and seems to thus run for the whole New Covenant era.

The mediatorial reign of Christ is the reign so often linked in with the earthly ruling of the worshipping nations your friend believes in, and this reign is continuously depicted as a heavenly session at the father's right hand, and not being a mere earthly potentate on a grubby throne over an exclusively ethnic nation. It is a reign over and in the church, not merely the church triumphant but the church militant, a reign that is continously identified with OT prophecy and explicitly stated as beginning in the NT era, not in some future coming before the end posited for mere systemic purposes in the face of contrary verses. This reign is seen as a reign fulfilling those OT promises of historical blessing, in history, before the end, when the reign ceases and Christ hands over his kingdom to the father, a reign in which the effects of the curse are gradually defeated, wars cease, and the nations one by one come unto Jerusalem and worship the Lord by her light. The mediatorial reign begins with the exaltation of Christ, is the basis of the destruction of sin in history, and ends at the judgement (so much for 'now and not yet', which posits that the messianic blessings of the messianic reign are largely confined to a period after the messianic (Davidic) reign, ie, post-judgement heaven). It is this reign and this exaltation that are so regularly linked with the OT promises of earthly blessing and national conversion. If your friend quotes promises to you, at times you agree with their historical nature, but point out their link to the exaltation of Christ and his current messianic reign that is the exaltation of the Servant of the Lord for his obedience. It is not mere blessings that are promised, but blessings from the messiah, and it is not blessings apart from the present reign, but during it and because of it.

Dispie theo seperates the office of the mediator (exulted) from the blessing he gives, and insists that the blessings only be linked with the Davidic rule. I would suggest that the Messiah's rule, currently, is the Davidic rule, which is at least the basis of his office as king; Davidic rule is integral to messianic rule in my books, and doesn't occur in Christ apart from it.

In sum, ask your friend why he cannot really believe that the Son of Man is seated at the right hand of power until he defeats every enemy, why he cannot believe that the Son of Man will not come again until he comes in judgement at the end of the world, why he cannot believe that the messianic reign is now begun, why he cannot believe that Christ will come as a thief in the night, why he cannot believe the NT identification of the church with Israel, and why he cannot believe the NT applications of OT prophecy to both the current messianic reign and to that NT Church which Christ reigns in ... he has to answer "because of dispie theo". It is dispensationalism that fails to explain the prophecies, because the prophecies see Jesus Christ reigning over the gentiles in his Church (or kingdom), and blessing them with peace and conversion as a result of his obedient work.

Sorry for the long post, and the poor spelling, but the topic is glorious, and may you pass over my halting words to see the truth in Christ, and to behold the gories of His reign.

Yours in Him,

Jack.