Replies

I remember that one. At the same time as that came out Dan Phillips, aka Bibchr, a "dispensational Calvinist", posted Al Mohler: Tim LaHaye is like Dan Brown on his blog. It is interesting to compare and contrast the two.

From that article: Saying that "Israel" means "Israel" is "decoding";

I’m always puzzled a bit by the insistence of the “literalists” regarding this phrase. What exactly do they mean, and what are they insisting?

The fact is that identification with “Israel” was always by covenant and never purely by race or genetic relationship to Abraham. When Abraham was circumcised in obedience to God and as evidence of his faith and identification with the covenant of grace, there were also many of his household not of his flesh who were also circumcised. By this act they became identified with “Israel”.

At the time of the Exodus and the giving of the Passover ordinance, the stipulation that any could observe provided they were also circumcised. And what was the result of that circumcision, they became identified with Israel (Ex. 12:48).

So by the time Israel enters the promised land, it’s clear they are far from a genetically related group of people.

The sojourner was to be treated as the native as long as they were identified with the covenant by circumcision and kept the other terms of the covenant.

In Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple, we find this interesting description. “Thus you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger dwells, there you shall give him his inheritance," says the Lord God.” (Ezekiel 47:21-23)

Here we have a key prophecies for the futurist, the fulfillment of the so-called land promise, and we find non-Israelites receiving an equal share among the tribes. Again, confirming the principle that “Israel” always meant much more than the mere physical descendents of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. It meant all those who were in covenant fellowship with God.

So, by the time we get to the New Testament the pattern is well understood by the apostles, especially Paul. Paul could use language such as this:

Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands-- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, (Eph. 2:11-19)

That last phrase, household of God, is an important one. It identifies God’s people as Bethel, the house of God (Gen. 28:17; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:21; 1 Peter 4:17). And it includes gentiles in that Bethel. Of course this is what God always intended, since the time He proclaimed Abraham the father of many nations (Gen. 17:4).

The clearest implication of this and other passages is that the Church of Jesus Christ is the expanded Israel foreseen in all the Old Testament. That is why Peter could declare, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.” (1 Peter 2:9,10) Peter had no fear of being called an anti-Semite for applying all the old covenant titles given to Israel to the Church. The reason being that the Church was the expanded Israel.

So where does that leave us today when people say things like “Israel means Israel”? What does that phrase connote? It was Paul who said “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). We see by the context that Paul’s message was a remnant of the nation Israel was the “all Israel” who was being saved even in that day. It was a remnant of those from the old covenant people who were being included by God’s gracious sovereign choice into the new covenant people. Same people. Same covenant of grace. New administration.

But what about Israel today? Some folks consider the modern nation of Israel to be the thing identified as “Israel” in the statement “Israel means Israel”. Some folks relate it to ethnic Jews. But how is a modern ethnic Jew or a modern citizen of secular Israel identified with “Israel” as we find it used in the Bible?

I would say not very well. And the reason I say that is because of the covenant. As I said at the beginning, identification with Israel was always by covenant. Therefore, identification with “Israel” today must also be by covenant. But which covenant?

Well, the fact is there is only one operational covenant today, that is the new covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ. Those who would be identified with “Israel” must be identified with the blood of the Lamb. Jews today are living, at best, under the terms of the old decayed covenant (Heb. 8:13). That covenant is no longer operative in offering a relationship to God. Yet, there are thousands upon thousands of Jews living today who are descended from people who are no closer genetically to Abraham that you or me. They became Jews long after the new covenant was established in the blood of Messiah. Are these the folks that we should think of when we say “Israel means Israel”?

As Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:28,29) This is also why Peter could refer to the Church as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people” with impunity. Peter and Paul knew the Church was the only entity in covenant relationship with God, and stood as the heir of the promises to Abraham by virtue of faith in Jesus Christ.

So I would agree with the statement that “Israel means Israel” wherever we find it in the Bible. And I can also state with confidence that “all Israel will be saved”. Not after the manner of the flesh, but according to the promise.