Jesus True Israel
I am still as always wrestling with the "issues" of understanding Jesus to be the "true Israel". I am so frustrated some times with the entire process and the polarity involved with this understanding. A few thoughts:
The whole biblical-theological setting of redemptive history seems to setting the stage in the OT for the NT understanding of Jesus as God's true Son. That is, Israel, to whom all the promises are given, and from whom Jesus would come, is called "Israel is My firstborn son" (Ex 4.22). Again, the prophet says, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11.1). Redemptive history demonstrates that God pours out his love upon his first born (dare I say "only begotten") son. Thus, in the NT the proclamation of Jesus as the "son of God" is staggering and pregnant with fulfillment language. I say fulfillment b/c Matthew says, "And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt. And remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "out of Egypt I will call My son" (Mt 2:14-15 cf. Hosea 11:1).
Also notice that Hosea is speaking out against "all Israel" throughout the entire book. He is addressing a nation, but yet this national language seems to have individual overtones which are picked up by the NT authors (as stated in Mt above). Is the prophetic ministry of Hosea to a national "Son" going to be fulfilled in the True Son, Jesus Christ, (and consequently fulfilled in us who are in Him)? Thus, establishing Jesus as the True Son of God, the True Israel? Notice Hosea's national yet individual prophecy:
"Come let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us;
He has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him (Hos. 6.1-2).
This is fulfilled in Jesus, God's True Son, the True Israel. Right?
Jesus was struck down and was raised on the third day in order that "we may live before him"!
What say you of this?
The whole biblical-theological setting of redemptive history seems to setting the stage in the OT for the NT understanding of Jesus as God's true Son. That is, Israel, to whom all the promises are given, and from whom Jesus would come, is called "Israel is My firstborn son" (Ex 4.22). Again, the prophet says, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11.1). Redemptive history demonstrates that God pours out his love upon his first born (dare I say "only begotten") son. Thus, in the NT the proclamation of Jesus as the "son of God" is staggering and pregnant with fulfillment language. I say fulfillment b/c Matthew says, "And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt. And remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "out of Egypt I will call My son" (Mt 2:14-15 cf. Hosea 11:1).
Also notice that Hosea is speaking out against "all Israel" throughout the entire book. He is addressing a nation, but yet this national language seems to have individual overtones which are picked up by the NT authors (as stated in Mt above). Is the prophetic ministry of Hosea to a national "Son" going to be fulfilled in the True Son, Jesus Christ, (and consequently fulfilled in us who are in Him)? Thus, establishing Jesus as the True Son of God, the True Israel? Notice Hosea's national yet individual prophecy:
"Come let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us;
He has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him (Hos. 6.1-2).
This is fulfilled in Jesus, God's True Son, the True Israel. Right?
Jesus was struck down and was raised on the third day in order that "we may live before him"!
What say you of this?
posted by adam at 6:23 AM
21 Comments:
Adam,
As you know, in recent months I have been become more and more friendly with typology, though I do still have my reservations.
Though I use the language of Jesus as the "true Israel," I think that this language only makes sense historically when it is placed against OT themes of the messianic king as the representative of Israel.
For me, personally, when typology is presented outside the overarching context of fulfillment, it can become historically vague and ambiguous -- even non-sensical.
Are you suggesting that this example is, for you, outside the overarching context of fulfillment?
I trust not. That was the thrust of the argument.
Adam,
Understanding the centrality of Christ in the Bible has greatly helped me in understanding concepts such as these. I think you are right on with your analysis. The Old Testament is not simply a boring list of events, but it is the revelation of our Savior! It is a book about Christ. As I continue growing in my understanding of the summing up of all things in Christ, I cannot help but raise my hands and shout "Praise be to God!" Thanks for the post.
In Christ,
James
The ramifications of saying that Jesus is the "true Israel" can be many or few, depending upon what the person is really meaning or has in mind when he is saying it.
The ramifications for me, when I say it, are MANY. For instance, if I were to suggest that Christ is the True Israel then I am wresting with the extent of ALL of the promises in the OT (physical land, physical Kingdom, basically all Old covenant promises, and the New Covenant promises as well Jer 31:31) given to Israel as being promised to a nation who is a "type" of the True Israel who is to come and accomplish and fulfill all that Israel could never have done. Thus, all of the promises are found to terminate or find thier fulfillment complete in him and his life on earth.
In sum, ALL of the OT promises are complete to "Israel" since Christ, the True Israel has fulfilled them. Thus, all who are in him and partake of his fulfillment on their behalf are the true Israel of God.
The ramifications are immense. For instance, the OT land promises are now completed in Christ. Since the land was a type of relationship in God. The land was representative of a place where God would dwell in their midst and they would share intimate fellowship with him as their God and King. That was the point of the land, to be where God was. However, this was a "type" awaiting it's truest fulfillment in the Son of God, in whom we (the true Israel of God) would share that special relationship of God's presence with us. No longer is there a need for the land because the ideals or true essence of the land are experienced in Christ the true Son of God, the True Isreal and those who share in him experince the blessings of what it meant to be in the land (i.e. a relationship with God in his presence as thier King)
I won't wear you out with more explanation, but that is a sample of what I am saying when I say I am "wrestling" with this understanding and all of its "issues".
Please send back comment
Adam,
To clarify, that would also mean no future for ethnic Israel. Am I correct? Furthermore, the true people of God would be composed of both Spiritual and Ethnic Israel. I love the typology of Christ as the fulfillment of all things, and Goldsworthy's PTWBACS is helping me extremely (in addition to AP and Beale's TTATCM). Good stuff here!
James
You said,
"The ramifications are immense. For instance, the OT land promises are now completed in Christ. Since the land was a type of relationship in God. The land was representative of a place where God would dwell in their midst and they would share intimate fellowship with him as their God and King. That was the point of the land, to be where God was. However, this was a "type" awaiting it's truest fulfillment in the Son of God, in whom we (the true Israel of God) would share that special relationship of God's presence with us. No longer is there a need for the land because the ideals or true essence of the land are experienced in Christ the true Son of God, the True Isreal and those who share in him experince the blessings of what it meant to be in the land (i.e. a relationship with God in his presence as thier King)"
So God didn't make a real promise of land to the Jewish people? So God deceived them into thinking that they would actually get land? The minor and major prophets (if you take them seriously) understood that the promise made to Abraham and Moses and David included an actually piece of property. So are you saying that God lied to the Jews?
CWat,
Have you read many Amillennialists? Have you done any reading on apocalyptic and intertestamental literature?
Watson:
I think that KJVernacular handled your condescension properly, however, at the risk of taking away from his accute analysis of your post behind the post I still will try to address your thoughts/concerns with reference to my calling God a liar.
In regards to your basic thought, "So God didn't make a real promise of land to the Jewish people?" I will answer yes. I think that it could not be any more clear than in the Pentateuch as a whole. The entire section is "Land Centered" (obviously so). However, one must ask what is the function of the land to the people in God's redemptive program? That is, in the context of redemptive history, compiled in the 66 canonical books, what is the function or purpose of the Land?
Where I think that you go wrong (you being a single representative of the so called "literal hermeneutic")is in your lack of understanding biblical hermeneutics, even, dare I say, "true" literal hermeneutics.
Can you define "literal hermeneutics" so that you can, according to your definition account for the varied genre's within which biblical data is written? You previous post screams "No" to me.
That is, perhaps you should consider that a 'literal hermeneutic' is not the best terminology to use when speaking of a "biblical" hermeneutic (see Vanhoozer, "Is there meaning in this Text?". Surely, we do want to aspire to a hermeneutic that treats the text of Scripture honestly and which enables us to grasp the authors original intentions. However, your understanding of hermeneutics not only flattens this aspect of authorial intent, but it also denies the fact that the authorial intention is multi-layered. That is, the author certainly has concrete physical realities in mind (Moses/Land), however, this is not exclusive. That is, there are "literal" spiritual realities pregnant within the authorial intention as well. How do I know this? PROGRESSIVE REVELATION.
Does this mean that God lied because there was a multi-layered meaning in the prophecies or physical realities in the OT? NO...NO...NO...NO...NO.
To suggest that your hermeneutic (unbiblical literalism) is THE right corresponding manner of interpretation to the holy text is unfounded. Your over-confidence in the modern hermeneutic does not suggest that you "take the prophets seriously" whereas, I do not.
Adam,
Well-said. I found this quote in a book that I have been reading, and I think it explains your interpretation well.
"Dispensationalism keeps insisting that the faithfulness of God to keep his covenant is at stake in Israel inheriting the land of Canaan sometime in the future. This reasoning misses the whole point of the real promise. Suppose a father promised his son a car if he graduated from High School with a B average. The boy pictures in his mind a small compact. He really works and graduates with a B+ average. On his graduation day his father hands him a set of keys and says, 'Your new wheels are in the garage.' The boy rushes out to the garage trying to imagine which compact and what color awaits him. Imagine his amazement if he found a brand new $30,000 sports car with every option imaginable. Would one expect teh boy, in great disappointment, to go in to his dad and say, 'Gee, I was expecting a Geo or an Escort'?
Do you think that any OT believer, including Abraham himself, would trade what he now possesses in the presence of God for every inch of Palestine? Do you really think a believing Jew in the future would feel 'let down' if all he got was heaven itself? If you were a Jew living in teh celestial city, would you feel that God had gone back on his Word for giving you a heavenly city instead of the earthly city of Jerusalem? Would you lament his unfaithfulness to his unconditional promise made to Abraham?
What we are really saying is this: (1) Every promise that was made to Abraham and his seed is either now fulfilled spiritually in Christ; or will be fulfilled in the new heavens and new earth; or else it ended when the Old Covenant was done away; or there will be, in some cases, a 'double' fulfillment. (2) Every single thing given to a believer 'in Christ' is far better than anything in the natural world, including all of the land of Palestine. Every believer, whether Jew or Gentile, will ultimately be united to Christ and be part of his bride (Rev. 21) and experience the 'better things' of Hebrews 11:39,40."
Reisinger, John. Abraham's Four Seeds. New Covenant Media: 1998. 93-94.
ah, the smell of biblical controversy...fresh air to the lungs of all who love the text (despite their hermeneutic).
kjv,
welcome back...
it's been a long time, old friend.
i must say that it's curious that you should tout such arguments against the one with whom you are most closely acquainted.
(especially in light of the fact that the king james only position drinks deeply at the fountain of philosophical inconsistency...)
gordon,
nice illustration...
doesn't beale develop that as well?
i think he uses technology as a sort of genre, arguing that if a father promised his son a horse the year before henry ford invented the model t, would he be a liar to give his son a car instead? of course not, because the purest promise was actually that of transportation. if an infinitely better mode is available, it replaces and supercedes the first. to take a cue from your allusion to hebrews: "he takes away the first in order to establish the second (10.9);..."when he said, 'a new covenant,' he has made the first obsolete. but whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (8.13).
at,
good post; i continue to enjoy watching you grow as my friend and as a theologian (avoid literal fallacy here). can't wait to see what the Lord is going to do with you...some church will be blessed to have you as its pastor. was thinking of you in particular this past week when i read the following quotes.
1) towards the end of his biography on j.i.packer, alister mcgrath shares some of his [jim's] favorite preachers...and, not surprisingly - spurgeon was among them. on the importance of theology in the church, he loved this quote: "gentlemen - if, in your pastorates, you are not theologians, then you are just nothing at all."
2) in his work in barth's theology, eberhard busch describes barth's insistence on the word informing our theology when he employs a sweet latin phrase:
"non sermoni res, sed rei sermo subjectus est" (the word serves the content, not the content the word).
now that's what i'm talkin about!
that's the kind of hermeneutic we all need to employ. barth commented further: "he who does not adopt this statement as his own methodological axiom is no theologian and never will be."
watson,
i am quickly becoming a fan...
you're right next to the kingdom in my heart; if i read you correctly (assuming that is literally), i am glad to see you wrestling with the doctrine of infallibility; it is good to see you reaching out for help.
in the spirit of packer's attitude toward the catholics, perhaps we are merely co-belligerents. of course, that usually centers around something held in common;
are you, by any chance a calvinist (pun intended)? if not, perhaps we've reached an impasse. though that would not be the case with you and adam - for you share far more in common than perhaps you realize - cbts: fundamental, baptist, militant, separatist, dispensational, premillennial,
"scholarship". what a heritage...
here's to evangelical ecumenicity.
Oh smlogan,
your wit and winsome person has never ceased to amaze, delight, relieve and silence me and my thoughts. If I were to go to the grave before reading or hearing another perfect opine from your hand it would be an injustice. That is, an injustice with God, since I have already insinuated that he is not truthful, why not boast more in my arrogance by disagreeing with Paul, and suggest that there is indeed "injustice with God".
Right CWAT?
AT,
Your hermeneutic is not looking at the words and what they mean – you are attempting to examine purpose without examining the bare meaning. There is a difference between conceptual exegesis (why something supposedly is written) and grammatical/historical exegesis (what is actually written). You stated, “However, one must ask what is the function of the land to the people in God's redemptive program? That is, in the context of redemptive history, compiled in the 66 canonical books, what is the function or purpose of the Land?”
When it comes down to it, who is the authority on what layer of meaning means what? How can anyone know that they are right? Can a layman simply sitting at home, reading his Bible figure this out? Do you still believe in perspicuity?
Gordon,
Your analogy falls apart in two places: First, it assumes one people of God – which a dispensationalist does not do. A dispensationalist sees a different set of promises for Israel and for the Church. Second, it assumes that a promise of a spiritual inheritance is the same as the promise for a physical land. It is not comparing a compact car to a sports car. It would be more in line of comparing a car (a temporary thing which will fall apart) and a castle (a more permanent edifice).
Logan,
It’s great to be loved. I am a Calvinist when it comes to how a person gets saved. However, I hold to a general atonement (Because of 2 verses – 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 2:1). Also, I disagree with the reformed view of sanctification (I would hold to Chafer’s view rather than Warfield’s). Is that Calvinistic enough for you?
In conclusion – The statement has been made time and time again that I am a modernist. Gentlemen, lift up your eyes from the sand, pull your heads from your tiny gopher holes in the ground and realize that there are more categories than just postmodern and modern – expand your reading to the time before modernism – of premodernity. I am a premodernist when it comes to epistemology and hermeneutics.
CWat,
I can applaud you for standing in the face of criticism for what you believe. But can I now as a least a brother with a couple more years ahead in life (if in nothing else) emplore you, "Watch your tone man." I realize you are coming into enemy territory on Thomas' blog, but realize you speak to peers. No one is looking to you as an authority on the subject.
This opine to Gordon on the breaking down of his argument b/c it assumes a one people of God doesn't negate it. That's myopic! You disagreement doesn't change what another asserts, nor does it counter it.
Other things I could say, but CWat as you speak from the apparent boardwalk by the beach. Free from any sand upon you, consider men even a couple years your senior who are diligently trying to read to understand have come to different conclusions. Giving the mere benefit of the doubt, you should assume you have not read huge portions that we have not.
PreModern is wonderful place to read; however, since Post Modern is the now please enlighten us on your reading now that we may know of your expert opinion on these also.
Please understand my tone: absolutely bewildered by your stated authority in the discussion and quite angered at your desire to lecture your peers. Consider what you will.
Barker,
I mean no harm with my tone. My comments were not to be taken as a lecture – I only speak in the terse genre (as you have stated before) of the blog, and seemingly using the tone of those with whom I speak.
My disagreement with Gordon’s analogy is in the sense that this analogy attempts to attack dispensationalism on the grounds of a false and improper analogy. The analogy given discusses one people of God, while dispensationalism holds to two peoples of God. If this is an analogy to describe the gift of the kingdom to Israel – then the analogy given and a dispensationalist disagree on the definition of “Israel” – therefore the analogy is not a valid point from which to attack.
One of the best descriptions of Premodernism is found in Lewis’ (interestingly enough, he was the bridge between Premodernism and Postmodernity) “Abolition of Man.” (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm) I do not have time to discuss the Tao (as Lewis defined it) – but it is sufficient to say that a premodernist begins with the presupposition that “God is” and that “God has revealed Himself in a knowable way.”
With that, I retire.
Cwatson,
You are correct in saying that my analogy would fall apart if I were a dispensationalist who brought a preconceived set of assumptions to the Text in order to get a meaning that would fit my perverbial system. Dispensationalism certainly assumes more than one people of God and does so without textual warrant. Your "premodern hermeneutic" fails to see the key of the Scripture as Christ (Luke 24). I argue, along with Adam, for a "Biblical hermeneutic." You must let the authoritative Biblical authors interpret the promises of the OT (as in Luke). I urge you to humbly lay your assumptions down at the feet of the Text. Thanks for the comments.
AT,
Good, thought-provoking, encouraging, dialogue creating post. Keep up the good work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I will keep this short seeing as how you have "retired". I still hope that though you might not choose to respond you will still read and consider my comments.
First, I am astounded at your view of sanctification (Chafer)?
Second, I do not truly care whether or not your "pre", "mod" or "post" as far as modernity and hermeneutics go.
Third, I think that you are missing my whole argument from start to finish. I have presented what seems to be a biblical-theological presentation and meaning of "son". That is, as my hermeneutics progress I view Scripture at the "word" level as words give way to structure and literary intent, which give way to ideals or understanding (meaning, which is then leads the student into the task of constructing what theology is there. Not coming up with it, but rather constructing it as it is written. This is the task of "theologizing" or perhaps you have heard of "doing theology" (art/science).
Thus, when you suggest that I look into meaning or function without considering "words and their meaning" you prove that you neither read my post accurately nor understand what I am saying when I say to you that the biblical text is "MULTI-LAYERED". If the text is multi-layered then so too is the task of hermeneutics (i.e. words, propositions, paragraphs, literary analysis, biblical theological examination, ultimately Christ centered pursuit). You ask, how can we know who is the "authority" on each or any text? Well, just like any given text from any given book or any given text in the Scripture, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Just as a side note, I love how you are "pre-modern" and yet your desire for absolute authority on each text and statement really reflects a MODERN approach. Also, your presupposing that the aNE texts were written as to be digested with a gramm/histor method of exegesis. However, if you are not right in your presuppositions as to method (which, by the way intertextuality seems to deny ANY KIND of gramm/hist hermeneutics)then you are not ever going to be the "authority" on any text since the text cannot be properly accessed through that method. Thus, in search for meaning, if you are searching with the wrong method then meaning and authority is far from your grasp.
Finally, I do believe in perspecuity. This does not however, negate the fact that all, laymen or scholar better all do the samething (not hist/gramm hermeneutics) THEIR HOMEWORK.
Dig for gold Watson, don't rake for leaves- have you ever heard that saying? A really popular christian pastor who lives in Minneapolis, of whom your school "separates", said that a few times. :)
with that I retire
thanks
Gentlemen,
There is a way of looking at the cold hard historical/grammatical facts of the OT and realizing (when we properly treat the use the OT in the NT) that the NT in many ways explains the meaning of the OT. This does not make those historical and grammatical statements any less true, simply up for further explanation.
The NT talks of the OT being fulfilled. Matthew is clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of the son of God, yet, there is no literal sentence in the OT that says: Jesus will be the fulfillment of the son of God (to which physical Israel was). So allow room for further explanation of the OT in the NT. Don’t let the story end at the OT and think that the NT is the start of a new story.
Also, to the land promise…perhaps the fulfillment for that is the new creation. The person of Jesus does not do away with physicalness of the land promise, but instead fulfills and then enhances it, as he does with the promise of the people of God. Jesus being the fulfillment of the son of God does put an end to physical people. Jesus fulfills the role of the covenant people and then enlarges that covenant community into every language, people and nation, not just the Jewish nation. In that light, God is not a liar, just does more than we could ever imagine. (For eternity, we are more likely to be seen tilling the ground for vegetables than floating like Casper the friendly ghost.)
CWat,
Know that all of your “premodern” friends would be bewildered with your rigid literalism. Rather than join your literal hermeneutic to premoder writers, join it to dispensationalism. The dispensational literal hermeneutic is known to dispensationalism, not the premodern era.
You state, “Gentlemen, lift up your eyes from the sand, pull your heads from your tiny gopher holes in the ground and realize that there are more categories than just postmodern and modern – expand your reading to the time before modernism – of premodernity.” Heed Barker’s comments instead of passing them off with the “blog” qualification. Your talk is degrading to fellow believers in Christ. Blog or not there is a much more gentlemen, may I say Christian, approach to theological disagreement. Fight for unity, not create such.
Also know that you can discount everything I say because of my glarying ecclesial iniquity...I am located in Wheaton...gasp...it is true.
Jonathan Cummings
jon, jonny, jonathan...
(what shall we call you)?
after hearing some of the stories adam has told about you (a la sam horn and his suit coats), jonathan just seems a bit stuffy.
it's good to hear from you.
we're looking forward to connecting with you when we hit the chicago area, and are glad for all of the good things God is doing in and through you there in wheaton. as to your ecclesial affiliation, it is truly tragic.
of course, you may need to discount everything i say as well...we're members at Sovereign Grace.
chris,
not quite...but being one who is more than just a 'salvation calvinist' (for lack of a better term), i'm quite content with what you believe (knowing it has been decreed beforehand).
as for your reservation with the analogy - i hear you. we know that we are coming to it with varied presuppositions, and that anaolgies all break down at some point. in your case, you seem to take issue with the recipient (saying it's not the same guy/group of people; that is to say "to israel i'll give land, but to the church, i'll give Christ).
conversely, our attention is more with the gift (saying it is borne out of / directly related to the preceding entity [gift]; for instance, say a guy dated two sisters (consecutively). while dating the first, he expressed his desire to have a family. over the course of the relationship, the first tells the second all about the guy, and how she thinks its great that he wants to have kids (even though he meant being a part of her family...say he is an orphan).
the couple breaks up, and several years down the road, the guy and sister 2 cross paths again and date. she already assumes (and admires) some things about this guy based on the things her sister had previously told her. after they marry, he expresses his desire for children and happens to mention adoption...
1) has his desire ever changed, or merely the expression and articulation of what it means to have a family?
2) has he been true [real] with those for whom he cares, or is he leading them on?
3) if he and his wife did adopt, would they later explain to their children that they were an alternative option borne out of their inability to have a 'real' family?
and it wouldn't have to be sisters.
i'm hoping that you are at least remotely sympathetic to the continuity of the testaments. whether or not they are the same 'thing,' God does lavish his affection on both groups of people - choosing, calling, and redeeming them.
so, you are identifying an enormous bifurcation in the recipient based on your perceived distinction in the gift/promise;
while we would highlight an unmistakeable similarity in the gift/promises being made/offered, and therefore conclude that the parties being addressed are (perhaps) either:
a) being offered "essentially" the same or similar things.
or
b) are in fact, the same entity.
that is, the nt witness so strongly suggests the realization of all things israel in Christ, that perhaps we need to reconsider our methodology. could it be (in scripture) that 'israel' and 'church' are slightly nuanced in their connotation, but tightly associated in their denotation?
I said, "Jesus being the fulfillment of the son of God does put an end to physical people."
I meant, "Jesus being the fulfillment of the son of God does NOT put an end to physical people."
Sorry if this lent toward confusion.
Logan,
Those who know me well would get my attention with, Jonny. That would suffice for this blog also, less stuffy you know.
Jonny
of course, we could just go with christine - don't you think?
it takes a real man to post under his wife's name...you're a stud.
thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment
<< Home