Is Israel fulfilled by True Israel, Christ? It’s a practice in Covenant Theology to assert that Israel’s promises have been fulfilled in Christ.
With this and other assertions such as “Christ is true Israel” and “Fulfillment Theology” etc, CT sweeps away biblical prophecy related to Israel. Despite theses nuances, all these statements hang on the idea that the promises have been fulfilled in Christ.
Left Behind Hermeneutics
Par for the course is CT’s appeal to types, allegory, symbolism, poetry and apocalyptic narrative. By mentioning these components, it’s implied that Dispensationalists or Futuristic Premillennialists (FP) don’t really understand hermeneutics. Or that they are inconsistent.
Sometimes a CT proponent will attribute FP’s eschatological beliefs (on Israel etc) to Darby, Scofield, Hal Lindsey and the Left Behind novels. However, this is a trivial kind of criticism. From bitter experience it’s generally fruitless to engage an individual who insists on embracing this attitude.
Reading good Reformed men
Many Reformed CT folk – past and present – are men I love to read. Moreover, they write the sorts of books all Christians should read. They’re just very wrong regarding the relationship between national Israel and the Church.
One case is Herman Bavinck who plainly stated that the church has now replaced Israel. Yet his “Wonderful Works of God” is a magnificent read. Another worthy book is Rhett Dodson’s “Every Promise of Your Word” – The Gospel According to Joshua. The title becomes ironic towards the end of the book. Dodson fudges the exact promises made to Israel by appealing to an expanded Fulfillment Theology.
If Israel is swallowed up in the church and given “the whole world,” how does it never cease to be a distinct nation (Jer 31:31-37 etc)? Where’s the precision in that?
Excuses, excuses – amil and postmil
Recently I’ve read multiple statements (on Twitter etc) that Rev Chapter 20 is “notoriously difficult.” Others have noted that Zechariah Chapter 14 is also very difficult unless one applies Christological Hermeneutics.
The only difficulty I’d have is if I defended a tradition (rather than the Bible) that the church is true Israel. I’d be tempted to avoid looking too closely at these passages. But the Bible doesn’t tell us Israel has been replaced.
We see frequent frequent allusions to “hermeneutics” and “interpretation.” There may be understandable differences regarding interpreting symbols (like Nebuchadnezzar’s statue). But when God affirms that Israel will never cease to be a nation, perhaps that is exactly what He means.
As an aside
John MacArthur made a passing remark about postmillennialism which rippled through the Twitter community, and it was highlighted by Dr. James White. I’ve been listening Dr. White for years. While he’s professed amillennialism it ought to be no surprise to those who keep track that he’s apparently adopted postmillennialism. He has often been defensive of it.
Not long ago I saw a Twitter poll asking for input on which millennial position people subscribed. While I understand precautions regarding samplings, the poll resulted in amil and postmil being neck and neck. Premil was last. This doesn’t surprise me based on what I’ve anecdotally observed.
Dan Phillips wrote an essay citing silly reasons for dissing dispensationalism. He noted: “All of the coolest guys are amillennial/”historical” premill/covenant/whatever.” Being postmil is cool and and perhaps experiencing a resurgence. But is it biblical?
True Israel
Does Christ as “True Israel” cancel out national Israel? The subject needs a wider arena than this post. Yet Futuristic Premillennialists have done the heavy lifting. It’s a pity that good Reformed Brethren don’t always engage them fairly.
Dr. Larry Pettegrew is a heavy lifter. I’ve mentioned “Forsaking Israel” several times because it deserves to be read. Here’s what he observes:
If “true Israel” means that Christ identified with Israel and lived a life that exemplified everything that Israel was supposed to do including keeping the Mosaic Law perfectly, then there is no objection to the term… If calling Jesus “true Israel,” however, means that the nation of Israel is not truly Israel any longer, that she has no theological future, and that all the promises to Israel have been transfigured to the church through Christ, then that is an unbiblical concept. ~ Forsaking Israel (Pages 286, 287 & Note that I have a condensed his comments)
For more on this read Mike Vlach’s essay: What does Christ as True Israel mean for the Nation Israel? And the article: Various Forms of Replacement Theology. See also Tony Garland’s Systems of Interpretation and more topics HERE
Trusting God’s promises
The title of Rhett Dodson’s book “Every Promise of Your Word” is important to the Christian’s salvation because God has demonstrated His trustworthiness. As a result, we can be assured that all His promises regarding our redemption are trustworthy. Praise God!
Therefore we walk in dangerous territory if we try to manipulate God’s promises to Israel’s future as a nation. We shouldn’t dismiss future promises by asserting they’re “expanded.” This position removes Israel’s promised role to the nations, and the specific-land promise (Amos 9:14-15 etc).
The promises to future Israel were not fulfilled by or in Christ. They will be fulfilled, exactly as they were given, by our Trustworthy God, because of Christ.
Maranatha!
Sharing is caring!
