The New Covenant and Israel: What Is The Christian Response?
Oct 06
If you have listened to Christian talk radio, or read books like “The Epic Center” or “Left Behind”, or if you heard of John Hagee, Bob Dewayy, Chuck Smith, Kay Arthur, you would have heard that American Christians and America itself has a responsibility to “bless Israel”. Not only do we have a responsibility, but the way we bless Israel can have an adverse or positive effect on our own blessings as Christians and as a Nation.
Israel and God
I will begin by saying that Israel “was” once before the people of God. Here is how Michael Adams puts it in his essay “A New Covenant Theology of Israel”
Whenever the nation of Israel is evaluated in Scripture it is always viewed as an unbelieving people of God.4 This is seen most clearly in the book of Hebrews where it is stated that the Old Covenant, the covenant that established Israel as a nation and as the people of God, could not produce a real people of God.5 It could only produce an unbelieving picture of the people of God
Jon Zens in His article “Today’s Israel: Is God on Her Side” writes:
The concept of “Israel” is fulfilled both in Christ and in the new people of God, the body of Christ. Jesus, like Israel, is called out of Egypt (Matt.2:15) and finds Himself in the wilderness (Matt.4:1-2). Jesus, unlike Israel, is obedient to the covenant and is the “faithful servant” referred to in the Prophets.In light of the emphasis given to alleged unalterable promises made to Israel about the land, it is instructive to recall that God’s words were addressed to Abraham and his “seed.” This “Seed,” says Paul, was singular and refers to Christ, not to an earthly people (Ga1.3:16). Thus, for example, the promised offspring to Abraham must be seen as an innumerable company of believers, not as a regathering of an earthly nation (Ga1.3:29; Rev.5:9, 7:9). The physical descendants of Abraham, who indeed became like the sand of the sea in number, were a picture of the harvest Christ would accomplish in the gospel age from every tribe, kindred and people. For this reason believers can be referred to by Paul as “the Israel of God” (Ga1.6:16).
Finally O. Palmer Robertson in his work “The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow” writes:
In speaking of Israel’s land under the Old Covenant, it is necessary to think in categories of shadow, type, and prophecy, in contrast to reality, substance, and fulfillment under the New Covenant. These contrasting categories come to expression in various ways in the writings of the New Testament.
We see that Israel’s chosenness was based on a conditional covenant, that the Apostle Paul (who had the revelation of something that was once a mystery Ephesians 3:1-9) calls the “Old Covenant” (2 Corinthians 3:14 and Hebrews 8:13). When the “New Covenant” was fully ratified the Old Covenant became obsolete, thus any promises attached to it and any contractual agreements associated with are also obsolete. As Micheal Adams rightfully points out “Israel was an unbelieving picture of the people of God”.
Israel and the Church
I am not going to get much into this; however, the writers of the New Testament does see a “new Israel”. Now, let me pause for a second because someone will attempt to throw out a phrase called “replacement theology”. This is a strawman attempt to not deal faithfully with the text of scripture. The “Church” does not replace Israel, no more than Christ’s death replaces Old Testament sacrifices. When we look at the lamb and the mercy seat we immediately go to picture/type/shadow. We must do the same with Israel. Israel is a “picture” not the reality. So the church doesn’t “replace” Israel, the church has always been the reality, while Israel was a picture. Once the fullness of the revelation of Christ and what He was to accomplish was culminated, the picture became unnecessary, even obsolete. Much like an engagement ring is only a picture of the commitment but the wedding ring is the real thing.
Paul shows this wonderfully in Galatians 3:16
16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ
The Practical Implications
So what are we to do with this information? This is just a short appeal, to examine the case and I have provided links to some worthy resources on the subject matter. But what I want to convey is simple. Christians are not to pray for Israel no more than they pray for Palestine. Christians aren’t to support any war or violence against other nations in support of Israel, based off of their “chosenness” for God. We are to seek the “peace of God” for both nations, in hope that a door for the Gospel is opened that both may be reconciled to God. We aren’t to support “pro-Israel” candidates, no more than we are to support “pro-Muslim” candidates. Both are under God’s wrath because they reject the Messiah and both equally need God’s grace so that the veil of Satan would be removed. Finally God doesn’t want us wasting our time reading books, newspapers and watching newscasts about Israel to try to decode the return of Christ or to change our behavior. This is sensationalism, clothed in biblical exegesis. We are to pray for, love, seek the reconciliation of, and support any other peaceful movement for both nations. There is nothing special about the land or the people, other than they are God’s creation, who need God’s mercy just like us. America is not under any spiritual obligation to do anything for one nation above the next!
Lionel-
After explaining all this to a dispy the other day, I was told that I was an anti-semite!
I just got through explaing to him that the in the new covenant the chosen people/Israel of God are all those who are in Christ both Jew and Gentile and that we should love all ethnic groups and pray for them to come to Christ, yet his presuppositions brought him to the outrageous conclusion that I am an anti-semite! Amazing.
The next question is since all world governements and nations including the US and Israel are all a part of the fallen world system, how should we expect them to respond to violent attacks? Since they are not teh church, I do not hold my breath and expect for them to give a Christian response of turning the other cheek and loving their enemies, I expect them to respond in a natural man’s fashion!
It keeps one from being disappointed to understand that no world government is an expression of the church-now Christian responding with violence is another matter altogether.
Amen Hutch!!!!
Hutch,
Thinking about the “anti-semite” label. You may want to say you are “pro-semite” given the fact that you want to see all of Israel saved like our brother Paul. Anti-semtic seem to be those who give people false hopes that they will be saved due to an obsolete covenant. Also I don’t have much hope either; however, I don’t want to see our brothers and sisters manipulated by bible teachers (some who are really good in other areas) to support Isreal over and above any other nation.
Yeah…I was told I adhered to replacement theology…I prefer fulfillment theology or just plan ole biblical theology!
The early church fathers were comprised of both A-Mil and a form of Historic pre-mil…both recognized that the chosen people of God/the Israel of God were all those in Christ both Jew and Gentile.
Disp-Pre-Mil was invented approximately 178 years ago-Spurgeon was holding sway over his preaching ministry when a lot of this stuff was coming out and although I do not suggest we speak this way about our eschatologically challenged brethren he said this: We shall never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement.
Charles sure had a way with words as he puffed on that cigar!
Lionel,
Good post.
You stated:
” Once the fullness of the revelation of Christ and what He was to accomplish was culminated, the picture became unnecessary, even obsolete.”
My response:
Should the observation of water baptism and communion be treated as old covenant rituals that only symbolized or forshadowed the fulfillment in Christ in the New Covenant? I am of the current understanding that water baptism and communion do not have the same relevance now as it did in the old covenant for the children of Israel. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person observe these old testamant rituals. For we are now commanded to die to the flesh and live anew in Christ Spirit (Water Baptism). And we are now commanded to eat His flesh and drink His blood by continually abiding in Him(Communion).
You stated:
“We are to pray for, love, seek the reconciliation of, and support any other peaceful movement for both nations. There is nothing special about the land or the people, other than they are God’s creation, who need God’s mercy just like us.”
My response:
Based on your previous post it would seem that you are more merciful and loving than God. Because according to you, God does not love everyone the same and He is not merciful to all of His creation, nor is He willing for all to be reconciled to Him through Christ.
Water Baptism and Communion are both new covenant commands (Matthew 28/Acts 2:38, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19, and John 13/1 Corinthians 11) Jon.
Jon, I am also less loving than God, in my previous post I explained about God’s love for His son’s bride and the love He has for those who has rejected His Son and those loves are obviously not the same (John 3 and 1 John 4).
Also I will attempt to call you after work Jon, I wasn’t dodging your call.
Lionel-
I like Sam Waldron’s approach of always letting the clear non figurative language of Christ and Paul regarding this age and the age to come and the distinguishing marks of the two ages to interpret the figurative apocalyptic language of Daniel and Revelation. He does a neat breakdown of the graphs for A-Mil, Historic Pre-Mil, Disp-Pre-Mil and Post-Mil and compares those to Christ and Paul’s teaching about this age and the age to come and the distinguishing marks of those two ages and then asks=which viewpoint is compatible with Christ’s teaching?
This has helped me to come to what I believe is a much more Christ entered or gospel centered eschatology.
Have you read Sam Waldron’s book on eschatology? Then I sought out a commentary of Revelation that matches this gospel centered eschatology and found Triumph of the Lamb by Johnson. Have you read that one?
Lionel,
Exactly!!
How are you Mr. Aussie?
Lionel,
Some of my commentary on the scriptures that you provided:
Matt 28 (Questions that should be asked when studying this text)
Who is commanded to do this?
When are they commanded to do this?
My answer:
The eleven disciples under the old covenant in the age before the Holy Spirit was given.
Notice that in I Cor 1:17, Paul states that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. Why is Paul not under this so called “Great Commission” if it were to be applied to all and for this present age? (Church Age).
Acts 2:38; 8; 10; 19
Notice that in Acts many Jewish old covenant customs were
still being observed and commanded to be observed by some of the early church leaders such as Peter. During this early period of the church age, Christ had to breakdown some of their traditions and give the spiritual meaning behind the old covenant physical ordiances. Paul addressed this problem in Colossians 2:16-17.
Cor 11
Paul here is addressing the schisms in the churches in Corinth. He reminds them of what the Lord revealed to him regarding the Lord’s Supper and its spiritual significance for us in this present church age. Because some at Corinth were doing things that did not reflect this new “spiritiual communion” with Christ and they were therefore living an unworthy life in Christ and Paul was sent to address it. He goes on to state that we should examine ourselves and judge ourselves rightly so that we do not have to be judged/corrected by the Lord. Some (vs 30) were apparently being judged by God through sickness and even death. This scripture is commanding us to abide in Christ by eating His flesh and drinking His blood (spirtiual communion).
How do we eat Christ flesh and drink His blood? By obeying His words. We proclaim the Lord’s death by sacrificing our lives and putting to death our flesh to live anew in God through Christ.
1. Jon, in Matthew 18, Jesus says “forgive or you will not be forgiven”. Who was He talking to?
2. & 3. The problem Jon is they still baptize after Pentecost. Paul baptizes in Ephesus in Acts 19. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles not to mention Rom 6 where Paul shows what Baptism is a picture of. If we turn to Acts 16 Paul is baptizing gentiles, so I can’t agree with you at all here. Paul is given a full reveleation and he still baptizes. As it relates to 1 Corinthians 1, Paul is giving an identification. The Corinthians are associating baptism with alliegence to a specific apostle and Paul is correcting that issue, not removing baptism.
4. Circumcision is a sign under the old covenant. Baptism is a sign aligning one’s self with the death, burial and resurrection. The baptism into Jesus’ death can’t occur until He raises from the dead so again I disagree with that perspective.
5. I don’t believe that “drink my blood and eat my flesh” has anything to do with communion. I don’t believe the Lord’s Supper occurs until John 13 and is later explored more accurately with Paul (scripturally speaking). We celeberate “fellowship” with the Lord by sharing a meal with other believers “love feast” is what Jude calls it. So again, I disagree with your perspective.
Lionel,
First off, I used to believe similar to you in this area as well. So I have asked myself some of the same things that you have brought up and have so far come to another conclusion.
1. Matt 18
Jesus is given instruction on what the Kingdom of God is about and how those who will be apart of it should behave. We are apart of the Kingdom of God and therefore we should forgive as Christ has instructed in this passage of scripture.
2 – 4. Acts 10:28
Notice that Peter, up into this point (after Pentecost) still was following obsolete Jewish laws. God had to intervene to bring him completely out of the old covenant.
Acts 15
Again we see that some in the early church (after Pentecost) was still teaching the brethren according to the custom of Moses.
Baptism was a sign for the Jews before Pentecost (John the Baptist). Remember that John the Baptist spoke of the coming spirtiual baptism that Christ would bring.
Rom 6
Paul is explaining why believers should be dead to sin and alive to God (spiritual baptism). This speaks nothing of an ordinance of water baptism as a commandment but rather gives the true meaning of the old testament shadow which was water baptism. When John and others baptized by water before Pentecost, they were only participating in the shadow not the substance which is Christ.
5. The passover in John 13/Luke 22 is a Jewish custom that dates back to their deliverance in Exodus. They were commanded to celebrate the Passover in rememberance of what God had done for His people. Christ gives the full meaning behind the old testament type. This is why is commands the Jews to take the passover now in remembrance of Him (the substance of the type). He also tells them that He will not eat or drink it again until the kingdom of God comes. He was pointing to the coming church age. So how does Christ now eat and drink with us in this Kingdom age? He does it with us when we abide in Him (eat His flesh and drink His blood). You seem to be confusing the shadows with the substance (old vs new).
Jon,
I would have to respectfully disagree, you make an assumption that I don’t think the scriptures give you a foundation for, especially as it relates to the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. They are constant theme throughout the New Testament.
Lionoel,
If you note the time periods in which the different epistles of the New Testament was written, you may find that there is very little if any mention of baptism or the Lord’s Supper in scriptures that were written later in time; espesically as it relates to being some type of binding physical orninance on the Church.
So what are the essential physical ordinances that the Church must observe?
For some believe that water baptism or the Lord’s Supper, or foot washing, or Sabbath Day keeping, or no pork eating, or whatever else is an essiential ordinance that must be observed by the Church.
I believe that all physical ordiances have been done away with since the substance is now here! But I do humbly respect your opinion. Rom 14 deals with these types of differences.
Jon,
I actually know quite well the writing of the epistles and how they intertwine with Acts. All of Paul’s epistles (maybe not 2 Timothy) fall within Acts, all of these churches had experienced both the Lord’s Supper and Baptism.
Lionel,
1) Are you saying that we are commanded to partake of these two physical ordinances?
2) If so, how often and how (water baptism by submersion, drippings/ Communion with alcohalic or non alcohalic or fruit juice , with a full meal or just a piece of cracker and small amount of juice)
3) And are there any other physical ordinances that we must observe?
Lionel,
BTW
There are only 2 references to water baptism in the entire New Testament outside of Acts.
Baptize – I Cor 1:17 (In this passage Paul states that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel)
Baptisms – Heb 6:2 (There was also a baptism for the dead)
Ane there is only two references to the Lord’s Supper or Communion in the entire New Testament.
I Cor 11:20-21 (In this passage Paul tells them that they were not partaking of the Lord’s Supper because they were not living out there faith in Christ. They were being carnal and therefore not communing with the Lord (not partaking of His Supper/ spiritually communing with Christ in His Kingdom).
Remember what Christ spoke to His disciples on the night of His last Passover meal.
Luke 22
Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you,[b] I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
The Kingdom of God has come and therefore there is no longer a need for the Jews or Gentiles to celebrate passover in remembrance of Christ. For Christ is alive and with us and is partaking of the feast with us through His Spirit which was given at Pentecost (the beginning of the Kingdom age), as long as we continue to abide in Him (eat His flesh and drink His blood- spiritually speaking).
Jon,
Let me start with your second comment.
1. “There is only one mention of baptism after Acts”. That statement has serious problems. When was Corinthians written and when was Acts written? When was Ephesians written (and when did Paul go there and spend three years there) and when was Acts written? The problem I see in your statement is that you don’t understand that the epistles are interwoven into Acts. So Paul is writing Corinthians and Ephesians while the historical narrative of Acts is unfolding. That would mean that if Paul baptizes in Acts 16, Acts 23 doesn’t happen into well after. I don’t know why you keep saying otherwise but every church experienced baptism, we can argue paedo/credo if you want, but one thing is for sure baptism is a practice throughout the NT and throughout the early writings of post biblical writings.
2. We don’t celeberate a “passover”; however, we do celeberate the Lord’s Supper. Those are two totally different things. Here is what Paul actually says in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Now unless you believe the “Lord has come”, we are to celeberate this meal. Paul says he received this from Jesus Himself and he delievered that revelation to the Church at Corinth. I don’t understand how you say that we don’t need to do it when the Corinthians are doing based off a revelation from Christ and this is to take place until Jesus returns.
Lionel-
Exactly. As I have spelled out time and again that we cannot isolate a verse and then give it our own meaning outside of the textual and situational context. Paul did indeed correct their mishandling of the Lords Supper, but his diagnosis was not for them to stop doing it, his diagnosis was to tell them how to do it properly, by sharing with the poor, by waiting for others, by examining their heart motivation and lives in light of what they are about to celebrate.
Jon-
You gotta read what it says above and below the verses you are isolating, to get the proper meaning from the scriptures.
Lionel,
You stated:
“The problem I see in your statement is that you don’t understand that the epistles are interwoven into Acts. So Paul is writing Corinthians and Ephesians while the historical narrative of Acts is unfolding.”
My response:
I do understand that some of the epitstles were written during the Acts period. My point is that as the early churched progressed in time you’ll notice that many of the old traditions were being done away with. Almost all references to water baptism and Communion/Lord’s Supper/Passover are all written in the early to mid Acts period or before. It is to be noted that during this same time period some in the early church were observing baptisms for the dead.
Are we to baptise the dead too just because some were practicing this in the early church?
And are there any other physical ordinances that we must observe?
You also stated:
“I don’t understand how you say that we don’t need to do it when the Corinthians are doing based off a revelation from Christ and this is to take place until Jesus returns.”
My response:
Paul was merely giving reference to that past event and how it now relates spiritually with us in how we should live our lives in Christ (spiritual communion).
Jon,
Is Acts 19 a “midpoint”? Paul had planted numerous of churches. Not only that Paul also gets his revelation from Christ Himself. Paul didn’t bring old customs over as he is very clear about that in Colossians 2, but baptism still Next where did the Corinthians learn “communion”? Who did they learn it from and if they are doing it and it isn’t important why didn’t Paul tell them to stop, instead of telling them how to do it correctly? That doesn’t make sense. Not to metion it is in the major writings of all the post-apostolic writings of the 1st and 2nd century as far as I know. At least Ignatius writes about both.
Lionel,
You stated:
“Not only that Paul also gets his revelation from Christ Himself.”
My response:
Yes, he got a revalation of what happen in the past and further understanding of its spirititual significance for the church. The purpose of his mentioning of it in I Cor was to make sure they understood the spiritual significance of it. Out of all the things that Paul instructs us to do in this life for Christ in all of his epistles, there is no mention of this or any other physical ordinance that we are commanded to observe. If you still think so, please provide your scriptural references.
You stated:
“Paul didn’t bring old customs over as he is very clear about that in Colossians 2, but baptism still Next where did the Corinthians learn “communion”? Who did they learn it from and if they are doing it and it isn’t important why didn’t Paul tell them to stop, instead of telling them how to do it correctly?”
My response:
Paul made it very clear that no physical ordinance is to be binding on the church. However, he states several times on how not to offend the weaker brother. Therefore, he was willing to be a Jew for the Jew in order to not offend the weak. He would abstain from eating meat if it offended the weaker brother but that does not make it a commandment for us to follow. He also mentions baptism for the dead. Why don’t you practice this since some in the early church and maybe still today observe it?
Good point Lionel. Paul planted the Corinthians church they were not in the upper room with the disciples and they did not live in Jerusalem, Paul taught them to remember the Lord in the Bread and the Cup while he served among them for eigteen months around AD53.
Jon,
Paul mentions baptism for the dead in passing. NO ONE knows what this entails. There are no scriptural references outside of it. We don’t see anyone in the Gospels, OT, or Acts being baptized for the dead, so it seems to be a Corinthian issue not something Paul taught (just like Paul didn’t teach them to be divisive, to eat up all the food at the Lord’s supper, to put other gifts above lesser gifts, to wear head coverings, to speak in tongues as use it as a foundation for the church). Whatever those 2 verses mean, it wasn’t practiced by other churches nor is it any writings of the post-apostolic church fathers.
You keep talking about that like it is a big deal but it isn’t. However, baptism dominates through the entire book of Acts which the epistles are encompassed in. Not to mention Matthew is written way after and it seems that Matthew also has a high view of baptism, not to mention Peter in 2 Peter talks a great deal about baptism and what it parellels.
The scriptures are not on your side Jon, you keep flirting around them but Hutch and I both show you and prove historically that baptism and the “love feast” were normal part of the church’s existence. You brought up the word “ordiance”, the scriptures don’t use that word; however, it does show that it was practiced throughout the foundation and continuation of the church and has never stopped being practiced thereafter.
Jon-
Two good resources that have been helpful to me and my understanding on how the epistles fit into the chronology of the book of Acts are: The Untold Story of the New Testament Church by Viola and a Chronological Study Bible that was published in 2008. I do all of my “daily bible reading” in this bible as it is very cool! As you read through the gospels you get a consolidated gospel and then as it enters into Acts the epistles are inserted where they belong. This way as I am reading the NT, I read all the way through in chronological order. I love it. It does the same with the Old Covenant scriptures as well and it is quite helpful to see the psalms inserted in the historical books and a harmony of the Samuels, Kings & Chronicles. I highly recommend these study aids.
Hutch,
Thanks for the recommend.
Lionel,
We may just have to agree to disagree on this subject as well. Hopefully, I have at least encouraged more indepth study on this subject. The baptism that John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, and Christ emphazised was the baptism of the spirit into the body of Christ. Water baptism was merely a shadow of this reality. But let everyone be fully persuaded in their own minds regarding the necessity of water baptism and taking of communion.
Ultimately, I think another said it best when it came to the issues of chaos/violence going on—for in their view, what’s happening over there today is nothing more than the PHYSICAL state of Israel in disbelief………..something God said He’d NEVER be for and always will condemn—-seperate from the True Israel that God desired.
If I may offer, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum ( http://www.arielm.org/outlines/o-isr.pdf ) gave a good review on the issue in “THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL IN BIBLE PROPHECY” ( http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs189m.pdf )—especially as it relates to the Modern State of Israel (which many Jews within do not see as God’s Chosen at all) and how the actions of injustice within it are more akin to things precedding Judgement for wrongs done upon other groups….