The Church is not Israel. The church is not Israel! The church is NOT Israel. True Israel is NOT the church! The church is NOT True Israel. The church is not Israel – spiritual, national or otherwise…
No, I haven’t flipped out like writer Jack Torrance in the book-movie The Shining. He typed pages and pages of: “All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy.” I’m just a tad frustrated and somewhat dull as well.
This isn’t a new topic.
Whenever I’ve written about this subject I try to point out my indebtedness to the Reformed people I read. Sadly, the Great Reformation was incomplete. It didn’t reform in the area of the church’s relationship to Israel. It maintained the stolen-Israel-identity status quo of its lineage. This is a shame.
One of the Five Solas is Sola Scriptura. Dispensationalists point out that, had the Reformers applied this principle to the church-Israel relationship, it should have reformed this area as well. The flow-on effect should have been a premillennial view, and the restoration and redemption of national Israel.
Instead, we find fairly typical observations such as the following. Noting Christ’s rebuke in Matt 21:43, Johnson writes:
The kingdom was taken away from Israel as a political entity, and given to the church. Like Israel, the church is also called to holiness. It must also produce the fruit of holiness in holy living. ~ Terry L. Johnson (The Identity and Attributes of God, page 160)
Now I want to say that I highly recommend Johnson’s book. It is pastoral, devotional and very instructive. In fact I used some of his biblical insights into God’s sovereignty and wrath in an article discussing eschatology. Nevertheless, Johnson’s comment about Israel was a fly in the ointment in an otherwise excellent work.
What did Christ say that about His kingdom?
My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world. John 18:36
Are we not citizens of heaven looking for a heavenly city (Phil 3:20; Heb 11:9-10)?
These are the usual points Covenant Theologians raise in response to a future restoration of national Israel, or a future millennium. So how can the church then be said to have inherited Israel’s political kingdom? As we’ve noted in past articles, our omniscient God made iron-clad promises to national Israel – not a future replacement or expansionist entity (Jer 31:31-37).
Thus says the LORD: “If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD.
“I will also plant them on their land, and they will not again be rooted out from their land which I have given them,” Says the LORD your God. Amos 9:15
Matt Waymeyer has discussed the disciples’ question to Jesus regarding the restoration of Israel’s kingdom. Christ didn’t say, “Wait until Pentecost and it will be given to you as the church.” His response wasn’t a correction of their expectations, it tacitly affirmed them. Christ simply told said that it wasn’t for them to know the times or epochs which the Father fixed by His authority.
Given the above, we then ought not to take Matt 21:43 as the wholesale rejection of a future establishment of Israel. It was a rejection of that particular generation to which the kingdom was offered. See also Deut 30:1-8; Ezekiel chapter 36; Rom 11:2, 26-30 etc.
I often try to read people I know I’ll disagree with on many points. Doing so adds to my understanding, and often they have great insights. To that end I’ve been reading Brian Tabb’s book, All Things New – Revelation as Canonical Capstone. Tabb takes an eclectic view of Revelation, so I was prepared for disagreements.
As a side note, see Tony Garland’s Systems of Interpretation for information on the different systems, including the eclectic view. It’s a view which arbitrarily combines elements from all the others. From what I’ve noted, however, it tends to largely eschew the futuristic view. Tony astutely observes:
One can’t simply combine the elements from disparate systems of interpretation, for they are often at odds with one another. Therefore, the subjectivity (a word to be avoided in interpretation) of the interpreter now rules over the choice of when to use which system.
At one point Tabb notes:
Revelation 3:9 presents further evidence that the church is true Israel. Jesus declares to the Philadelphian church, ‘Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie – behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet…and they will learn that I have loved you.’ (Pages 107-108)
It has become fashionable for some Covenant Theologians to reject the Replacement Theology tag. But this seems to be clearly a case of an RT statement. For more see Paul Henebury’s articles discussing aspects of Replacement Theology.
Does Rev 3:9 support Tabb’s assumption? Or is Tabb’s conclusion driven by Reformed tradition? If God means what He says in the Old Testament (see above), and He is Immutable, then a different conclusion to Tabb’s must be arrived at.
In his commentary on Revelation, Tony Garland sees no need for interpreting Rev 3:9 as a nod to Replacement Theology – see HERE. It’s only there if you read the text through a subjective-replacement lens.
In his book Christ’s Call to Reform the Church, John MacArthur addresses Rev 3:9. He notes that the term Synagogue of Satan is also used in the letter to Smyrna (Rev 2:9). This was simply a statement of fact that the early church was persecuted by non-believing Jews.
MacArthur also cites Rom 2:28-29 (For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly). None of these verses state a transition of identity over to the church. A true Jew is a believing Jew – a believing Gentile does not become a Jew!
There isn’t enough space to cover all of MacArthur’s points. But he takes the theme of Rev 3:9, then cites and connects Isaiah 45:14, 49:23, 60:14; Rom 11:26 and Zech 12:10. All these eschatological passages are addressed to a future Israel, not the church.
As noted in the past, Thomas V. Moore admitted that the closing chapters of Zechariah were “notoriously difficult”. They only present difficulties if one replaces future Israel with the church. Horatius Bonar had no such problems. He wrote:
The Prophecies regarding Israel are the key to all the rest. True principles of interpretation, in regard to them, will aid us in disentangling and illustrating all prophecy together. False principles as to them will most thoroughly perplex and overcloud the whole Word of God. ~ Prophetical Landmarks
I believe that God’s purpose regarding our world can only be understood by understanding God’s purpose as to Israel. ~ “The Jew,” The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy
H. Bonar was part of the Reformed-Puritan heritage. It’s a pity that that aspect of his belief is generally ignored today.
Time to further the Reformation – The Church is Not Israel.
Maranatha!
Further reading:
Brian Tabb somewhat appeals to the woman of Rev 12 in order to connect her to the church (community of faith). Read Tony Garland’s thoughts on Revelation 12 HERE. Regarding the identity of the 144,000, see Tony’s commentary on Revelation 7.
Sharing is caring!
