God’s Promises to Israel

Were God’s promises to Israel too wonderful to comprehend in plain language? Some think so—hence, God allegedly revealed them using earthly categories. Why would someone conclude this?

One example

I have unabashedly pinched the following example from a Daily Devotional (which I happen to recommend, BTW). The title of one particular day’s devotion is called Every Promise Fulfilled.

The New Testament shows us that the means by which God’s promises to Israel can be summed up in two words: Jesus Christ. God made His promises to Israel using terminology and categories that they understood—words like nation and temple. Christ’s coming redefined Old Testament concepts in light of the gospel: Old Testament prophecies, we discover, are all fulfilled christologically—by and in the person of the Christ… The [first] coming of the Son of God breaks the boundaries of Old Testament categories. (Underlining mine)

Other examples

Rhett P. Dodson wrote a book called Every Promise of Your Word: The Gospel According to Joshua. Impressively, Dodson was faithful to Joshua’s literalness. But he faltered when it came to Israel’s future promises. In my review I noted,

His appeal to Philip Hughes and O. Palmer Robertson etc infers that Israel’s promises have ultimate fulfillment in the new heaven and earth (in Christ & the church). There is a sense in which it is true, but we mustn’t discard the particular land promises. The same hermeneutics applied to Joshua also apply to Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah etc (See Jer 31:31-17, 33:19-25); Amos 9:14-15; Matt 19:28; Acts 1:6-7). These passages plainly point to national Israel living in the land which God promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In an older Banner of Truth article, Iain Murray appealed to Thomas. V. Moore’s commentary on Zechariah. After offering several examples of symbolism and imagery Murray wrote,

Similarly Zechariah—accommodating his language to the understanding of his times—used Jewish conceptions to express New Testament truths, e.g., the conversion of the Gentiles (8: 20-23) is signified by the coming of the nations to Jerusalem, and the joy of the Church in her final perfection (14:16) is figuratively represented by the keeping of the feast of tabernacles. (underlining mine)

Really—is that what the text says?

Not that difficult!

Were God’s promises to Israel too unimaginable to comprehend; thus needing the use of mundane or misleading categories? Was it too hard for Israel to understand? I don’t buy it for one second.

My intention isn’t to be combative or crass, but God is able to convey exactly what He intends. His audience wasn’t simple-minded or misled; it was well capable of understanding the same concepts which modern Covenant Theologians employ to change the meaning of OT prophecies concerning Israel. But they took them literally.

If God didn’t mean for His words to be taken literally, He have would have used brief hyperbole, not lengthy detail associated with land restoration. See also, for example, Ezekiel’s Temple.

I suggest that, while the issue of interpretation can be said to lie in hermeneutics, assumption is the real culprit. Covenant Theology (CT) assumes that either the church is the continuation of OT Israel, or that the church has replaced Israel (among other variants); thus becoming True Spiritual Israel.

This is baggage handed down by the church fathers (Augustine, Origen etc) through creeds and catechisms. CT cannot take passages like Zechariah 14 literally because it assumes national Israel is no longer relevant and the prophecies were “fulfilled” at Christ’s First Advent. And so it must resort to strategic maneuvers away from a plain reading.

Scripture

Therefore say to the house of Israel, `Thus says the Lord GOD: “I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. Ezekiel 36:22

Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. Ezekiel 36:28. See also Ezekiel 39:25-29.

The promises to Israel involve healing its relationship with God, and inexorably its restoration to the land.

God means what He says, and spoke plainly. We don’t need to spiritualize or “redefine” the OT unless we bring assumptions to these passages.

Maranatha!