|
“Then you shall say
to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is My son, My
firstborn.’” (Ex. 4:22)
“He [Jesus] is the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation...
He is also head of the body, the church.” (Col. 1:15,18)
There is a popular teaching in the
Church today that wants us to believe God has two firstborn
corporate sons, namely Old Testament Israel and the New
Testament Church. It is not articulated in those terms exactly,
but that is the unmistakable conclusion to which this teaching
leads. First of all, how can God – or anyone – have two
firstborn sons, corporate or not? But the two Scriptures quoted
above clearly apply the title “firstborn” to both groups, which
would seem to support such a teaching. So how do we reconcile
this apparent mystery? There can be only three possible
explanations:
1. The
Church has replaced Jewish Israel as God’s firstborn, as Jacob
supplanted his
older brother Esau, and Ephraim Manasseh.
2.
There are now two firstborn sons. But the title as
applied to the Jews is literal, and to
the Church it is figurative.
3. The
Church is part of Israel, so there is still only one firstborn
son.
In the early centuries, the first
of these three explanations was quickly adopted by the Church as
the right understanding. This soon evolved into a toxic teaching
known as Replacement Theology, which incorrectly assumed that
because the Jews had rejected Jesus, God had rejected them and
replaced them with the Church. God’s divine displeasure towards
the Jews was clearly confirmed, they thought, by the sharp
downturn in their fortunes after the first century, and the
Gentile Church’s explosive growth. This theology was accepted
even though the apostle Paul had termed such thinking “arrogant”
and “boastful,” and had clearly reaffirmed the Jews as God’s
covenant people in spite of their rejection of Jesus.
“God has not
rejected His people, has He?” May it never be...God has not
rejected His
people whom He foreknew....From the standpoint of God’s choice
they are beloved for
the sake of the fathers.” (Rom. 11:1,2,28)
From God’s perspective, even
though the Jews had rejected their Messiah they were still
counted as His people under the Abrahamic Covenant, which was an
unconditional covenantal promise made to Abraham’s whole family.
For those who argued that the Jews lack of faith showed they
were now outside the bonds of even that faith covenant, Paul
responds: “What if some did not have faith? Will their lack
of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?” (Rom 3:3). So even in
their unbelief, God still counted the Jews as His people and
would not abandon them. He will return to them in the last days,
and many will be saved.
“For if their rejection [of the
Gospel] is the reconciliation of the world, what will their
acceptance [of the Gospel] be but life from the dead?” (Rom.
11:15)
Today, more and more Christians are
rejecting Replacement Theology, seeing it as a complete
misreading of the New Testament. But now many of these
Christians have shifted to the second explanation, which I call
“Separation Theology.” This is the teaching that argues God has
two firstborn sons. The Jews are said to hold the firstborn
status in a true literal sense, while the Church is awarded the
honor in a spiritual sense. In this arrangement the Jews are
labeled “physical Israel,” and the Church becomes “spiritual
Israel.” The Jews are said to be God’s “earthly people” pictured
in the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as many
as “the sand of the seashore” (Gen. 22:17). And the Gentile
Christians are His “heavenly people” described in the second
half of the promise as being as numerous as “the stars of the
heavens” (Gen. 22:17). Although it is acknowledged the “sand”
and the “stars” share many promises in common, when it comes to
the Promised Land and our respective eternal rewards the two
groups are to remain forever separate and distinct peoples of
God. The Jews get the land, and we go to heaven.
This theology (ST) was first
popularized through the writings of John Nelson Darby, the
so-called “father of dispensationalism.” Although Darby
developed his ideas in the 1830’s, they didn’t really catch on
for another 100 years until the Scofield Reference Bible
included them in their commentary. In his teachings he
acknowledged the chosenness of the Jews (a welcome change from
Replacement Theology), but insisted the Church was still a
separate entity. Included in this teaching was the promotion of
a pre-tribulation Rapture that would provide the Church a way of
escape from the coming tribulation, and finalize the separation
of the Church from Israel (see my article, “Christian Zionism
and the Pre-Tribulation Rapture”).
Now I can appreciate how someone
might honestly arrive at Separation Theology as a viable way to
reconcile these two faith communities. But I’m convinced it is
as biblically incorrect as RT. It inevitably leads to a
hopelessly confusing situation and divided people of God.
Eerily, this teaching parallels the so-called “two-state
solution” being proposed by the secular world today as the
solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. That “two-state
solution,” as anyone who has honestly studied the issues
surrounding that conflict knows, can never work. It will
inevitably lead to the Moslem version of Replacement Theology,
which always ends in blood. In the same way, this theological
attempt to divide Israel and the Church into two separate people
of God won’t work either. It simply doesn’t line up with the
Word of God.
This article is an attempt to show
why ST is as flawed as RT, and why the third explanation that
the Church and Israel are the same entity is the
biblically-correct one. This is the only explanation that
completely harmonizes the identities of Israel and the Church
and brings us together as one people, having one God, one
Messiah, and one destiny. It is clear to me the Bible does not
want us to think God has two different people groups – i.e. two
firstborn corporate sons. God has only one firstborn son, and
his name is Yeshua ha Mashiach, Jesus the Messiah.
And clearly he is both the king
of Israel and the head of the Church. All those
who were chosen in him before he came, or after he came, are the
sons of God and the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Some are saved
now, others will be later. So at the end of the day there will
be only one Kingdom of God, and one Israel.
Therefore, I say to anyone willing
to put aside the popular theologies for a minute and hear me
out, you will see why this has to be the only true solution to
the ancient enigma of Israel and the Church. By God’s grace I
will articulate this revelation well enough so you will be
better prepared to take part in God’s coming grand restoration
of His people, as all the prophets have spoken.
Let’s start by examining the main
argument used to support Separation Theology and see why and
where it goes wrong.
The Argument
Those who support ST usually point
to the fact that 74 of the 77 New Testament verses that contain
the words “Israel” or “Israelite” refer back to Old Testament
Israel, or its people the Jews, and not to the Church. Only
three of the 77 verses are said to possibly include the Church
in their meaning. They are Galatians 6:16, where Paul speaks of
“the Israel of God,” Revelation 7:4, where John describes the
144,000 sealed saints as “from the twelve tribes of Israel,” and
Romans 9:6, where Paul states, “not all Israel is descended from
Israel.” (I myself would add a fourth, Rom. 11:26, where Paul
prophecies “all Israel” will one day be saved.)
I have seen this argument put forth
now by two highly-respected Church teachers and authors, the
late Derek Prince, and messianic Jewish scholar, Michael Brown.
Prince made the argument in an article entitled, Who Is
Israel?, which appeared in the 2001 Spring issue of
Christians For Israel Today, which was based on a former writing
of his, Who are the Israel of God? (1984). Michael Brown
presented the same argument in his 1997 best-selling book, “Our
Hands Are Stained With Blood.” [Since writing this article
I have also found the same argument made by David Pawson in his
book, “When Jesus Returns.”]
Unlike Prince, who was convinced
the two faith communities are as incompatible as oil and water,
Brown focuses more on just keeping Israel Jewish than defining
the Church as a completely different animal. At one point he
even seems to contradict his whole position, when he writes:
“May it be understood clearly and never forgotten: Gentile
believers have been grafted into Israel’s tree and they are
nourished by the ancient Jewish root” (pg. 139). Just two pages
earlier he had stated , “Paul is talking [in Romans 11] to
the Gentile believers about Israel. He is not telling the
Gentile believers that they are Israel” (pg. 137). So,
although Brown is fuzzier about the separation, it still comes
out the same.
At first blush, the argument that
the Church is never called “Israel” appears to be a strong one.
Because if the New Testament applies the term “Israel” and
“Israelite” to its Old Testament usage 97.5% of the time – how
can it be convincingly argued that the Church is now Israel?
Based on those parameters it can’t –
and shouldn’t be, if what is
meant is the Church is “all Israel.” And Brown to his credit
readily admits this.
“It would not have been a problem
if Gentile Christians had simply said: ‘God has expanded
the borders of Israel! Now we are included among the covenant
people since we are the
spiritual seed of Abraham. And we look forward to the day when
the Lord will restore the
physical seed of Abraham too! The Old Testament ‘Church’
consisted of Israel alone, but
the New Testament ‘Church’ consists of Israel and us. Together
we are the new Israel!’
Many devout Christians have held to this belief – and there
is much truth in it (emphasis mine)–
without for a moment thinking that God’s promises to the natural children
were ever in
doubt.” (pg.134)
Unfortunately, Brown backs off this
more inclusive understanding in the very next sentence when he
writes, “But for many Christians, the notion that the Church was
the new Israel meant God had forever discarded His children of
the flesh.” The fact that some in the Church took this inclusion
too far taints the whole understanding for him, and he quickly
returns to his argument that the term “Israel” should never be
applied to the Gentile Church.
The
problem with focusing only on the terms “Israel” and “Israelite”
is that it is too narrow a benchmark. It completely ignores all
the other Scriptures that reveal the followers of Jesus are
included into Israel, but use different words. For example, all
those in Christ are described as “Abraham’s descendants” (Gal.
3:29), “Abraham’s children” (Gal. 3:7), “children of promise”
(Gal. 4:28), included in “the house of Jacob” (Luke 1:33) and
are spoken of as belonging to “the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph.
2:11). If those who are called “Christians” are described as
Abraham’s family, doesn’t that eminently qualify us to be part
of the nation Israel? (How we are included is another issue
altogether, which I’ll deal with shortly.)
Why didn’t God just call the Church “Israel”?
Good question. I believe God had
two very good reasons for not just coming right out and clearly
calling the Church “Israel” anywhere in the New Testament.
First, the Church is not Israel.
Not if by “Israel” is meant “all Israel.” The developing Church
(I’m talking about the true born-again believers here, not the
institutional organization) can never claim to be “all Israel”
to the exclusion of the Jews. That is a return to Replacement
Theology. The Church, even today, only represents the “Israel of
God” in its formative stage. It is still in the womb, so to
speak. At present, God is working on that part of the family who
are coming from the Gentile world. Later He will draw in the
rest of the Jewish members, and “then all Israel will be saved”
(Rom 11:26). That’s when I believe God’s fully-developed
firstborn corporate son will be born into the world, and all the
angels in heaven will rejoice, just as they did 2000 years ago
at Bethlehem. Father will exclaim, “You are My son. Today I
have begotten you!”
Second, God knew that if the Church
was officially given the title “Israel” we would throw the Jews
under the bus - which is exactly what the Church did anyway (as
Brown carefully documents to our shame in his powerful book). By
leaving the national title of “Israel” in the hands of the
unbelieving Jews as He did, God was keeping the Church from
overstepping its bounds. And ultimately the restraint held. The
defenders of RT were never able to convincingly show from the
Bible where the Church was called “Israel,” nor overturn the
Scriptures that reaffirmed the Jews were still God’s people. And
RT was finally discredited.
But while God left the title of
Israel with the Jews, He gave the Church the firstborn covenant
blessings of Israel through our faith in Messiah Jesus. It seems
the blessing of Israel is like a free ion that will only attach
itself to those in the family deemed worthy by God. Brown
acknowledges this principle when he writes concerning Old
Covenant Israel, that “only God’s children, the faithful within
Israel, enjoyed the covenant blessings” (pg. 133). The
disobedient ones missed out. Likewise, under Israel’s New
Covenant, only those Jews and Gentiles who are obedient to
exercise faith in Jesus get to enjoy the goodies. Because, as we
know, he was the inheritor of all the blessings.
“Now the promises were spoken to
Abraham and to his seed. He does not say,
‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to
your seed,’ that is,
Messiah.” (Gal. 3:16)
Jesus is God’s firstborn son, and
since we are part of his body, we all share in the gracious
blessings he inherited, which he then distributes to us by
faith. Indeed, the Book of Hebrews calls the followers of Jesus
“the church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23). Those blessings
include forgiveness of sin, intimacy with God, assurance of
citizenship in God’s coming kingdom on earth, and all the divine
promises of the Bible to meet our needs (1 Cor. 1:20). When the
Jews finally do receive Messiah, and the Church repents of its
religious ways and walks again in faith righteousness, then
we’ll all be brought together as one people. And the world will
finally see one, totally restored blessed nation of Israel.
Why did God call the Church “the Church”?
Some might ask, if God wanted us to understand
that the Church was incorporated into Israel as His firstborn
son, why did He call the Church “the Church” in the Bible?”
Calling us by a different name only tends to separate us further
from the family of Israel. Actually God didn’t call us “the
Church”- men did. The Greek word translated as “Church” in the
Bible is ecclesia. And it is the same word used in the
Old Testament to describe the chosen Israel of God. That’s
right, the same Greek word ecclesia is found in both the
Old and New Testaments to describe the same ever-growing,
faith-filled congregation of God’s chosen people, the Israel of
God.
How can that be, you might ask?
Wasn’t the OT written in Hebrew, not Greek? Yes the OT was
originally written in Hebrew, but a Greek translation of the OT
was made by 70 rabbis known as the Septuagint nearly two
centuries before the coming of Jesus. In over 200 places where
the rabbis found the Hebrew words edah and qahal,
which are translated in our English Bibles as “congregation” and
“assembly” in the OT, they rendered them as ecclesia in
the Greek.
Since Greek was the original language of the NT
we can now compare the two Testaments in the same language. And
we can see that ecclesia is always used to describe the
people of God. It’s just that in the OT it is translated into
English as “congregation” or “assembly” and in the NT it is
translated as “Church.” For example, Exodus 17:1 reads: “All
the congregation (ecclesia) of the children of Israel moved on
from the wilderness of Sin.” This has made it appear as if
God has two separate and distinct groups.
The problem is the English word “Church.” It is a
bad translation of ecclesia. Ecclesia, which
literally means “the called-out-ones” would have been better
translated in our New Testament as “congregation” or “assembly,
just as it is in the OT. That is how Tyndale originally rendered
it in his English translation, but later the translators of the
King James version changed it everywhere to “Church.” If they
had left it as “assembly” or “congregation” we would see it was
used the exact same way throughout the Bible.
But surely the NT ecclesia
is different from the OT ecclesia, isn’t it? Only
spiritually speaking. Those who are in Messiah’s congregation or
“Church” have advanced in the realm of the spirit, but they are
still part of the same physical entity known as Israel. Like the
Jews, we are all part of the same family but in different stages
of spiritual growth and standing with God. That is, the New
Covenant ecclesia has received an impartation of God’s
Spirit and a forgiveness of sins that the rest of Israel still
lacks. But both groups are still Israel.
The same problem extends to the
name “Christian.” This name has majorly interfered with us being
seen as part of Israel. It is a word that only appears in the
Bible three times (Acts 11:26;26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). And each
time, according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament
Words, it was used derisively by others to scorn us. Paul never
called us Christians. But the name stuck and was finally adopted
by believers in the second century as the name we call
ourselves. But that name has robbed us of our true identity and
made it seem like we belong to another religion.
OC Israel vs. NC Israel
Let’s go back to the 77 “Israel”
Scriptures for a moment. I want to point out something else that
neither Prince nor Brown considered. When you put the Scriptures
in context, you see that although all may be speaking of Old
Testament Israel – not all are speaking of the nation as being
under the Old Covenant. Some clearly are speaking of
Israel with reference to Jesus and the coming New Covenant.
That’s an important distinction. Because that automatically
brings the Church back into the conversation. Let’s consider
just four of these verses.
1. Matthew 2:6 – “...a
ruler who will shepherd My people Israel.”
2. Romans 11:26 – “...and so
all Israel will be saved.”
3. Hebrews 8:8 – “I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and house of
Judah.”
4. Matt. 19:28 – “...you
who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel."
In the first verse, Matthew is
quoting a prophecy by Micah to show how it was fulfilled by
Messiah Jesus. Jesus was the “ruler who will shepherd my
people Israel” (Matt. 2:6). If the Church and Israel are
indeed different entities, then Jesus has to abdicate his claim
to being the head of the Church so he can be the shepherd of “My
people Israel.” Either that, or Jesus is now the head of two
bodies of believers: a Gentile Church and a Jewish Israel. But
that violates the entire message of the New Testament! Over and
over we are told that in Him, both Jews and Gentiles have become
“one new man” (Eph 2:15). That we are “one flock with
one shepherd” (John 10:16). “That through the gospel the
Gentiles are heirs, members together of one body”
(Eph. 3:6). The Scriptures simply do not allow us to say that
Jesus has become the head of a new Gentile entity called “the
Church” that is totally separate from physical Israel.
The second Scripture, Romans 11:26,
comes at the conclusion of Paul’s famous tree-grafting
explanation where he warns the Gentile believers not to become
conceited and turn against the unbelieving Jews. To restrain us
further from acting condescending to the Jews, he reveals how
God will turn to them again in the future: “I do not want you to
be uninformed of this mystery - so that you will not be wise in
your own estimation - that [only] a partial hardening has
happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has
come in [to Israel]; thus all Israel will be saved.” By “all
Israel” he is not just speaking of the Jews only, as if one day
all the Jews in the world will be saved. He is defining Israel
now as a combination of the fullness of all the Gentiles who
have been drawn to Jesus by God’s grace, plus those Jews who
will be given the same grace in the future.
The third Israel Scripture, Hebrews
8:8, is quoting a prophecy by Jeremiah (31:31) in which God
promises - “I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel
and with the House of Judah.” As we know, this is the very
covenant Jesus inaugurated in Israel that most Jews in the first
century rejected. Those who received it were eventually known as
“the Church of Jesus Christ.” If the Church had remained purely
Jewish it would have been obvious the nation of Israel had
simply split into two factions - those who moved forward into
Israel’s New Covenant, and those who chose to stay under the Old
Covenant.
The fourth Scripture is Jesus
telling his 12 apostles, later called Christians, that they will
rule over Israel when the kingdom comes. Again, how can the
twelve apostles be the leaders of Israel and of the Church and
not say they are the same community?
One final Scripture, one which
didn’t make the “Israel” list, but which should not be
overlooked, is the angel Gabriel’s birth announcement to Jesus’
mother, Mary. It states:
“He will be great and will be
called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give
him the throne of his father, David; and he will reign over
the house of Jacob forever,
and his kingdom will have no end.” (Luke 1:32,33)
Here we see Jesus being proclaimed
King over Jacob’s family, all twelve tribes, in fulfillment of
the messianic promise to King David that one of his descendants
would rule over all Israel forever. So we see, that even though
the words “Israel or “Israelite” don’t appear in the verse, the
words “house of Jacob” are applied to everyone who bows his knee
before Jesus as “the son of the Most High.” And as we know, this
born-again part of the family of Jacob is today called “the
Church.”
The puzzle pieces
So where are we? Hopefully you are
beginning to see that the Scriptures do indeed make room for the
whole Church to be included into Israel, and simply do not allow
the Church and Israel to be treated as two separate people of
God. But if you are like most people, you are still wondering
how a mostly Gentile Church can be legitimately included into
the physical nation of Israel and it still be kosher. That is
the real stumbling block. For Prince it was an insurmountable
wall, leaving him no choice but to remove Gentile Christians
from being considered as part of Israel because, as he put it: “There
are no legitimate grounds for giving the title Israel to anybody
not descended from Israel.”
The problem we have is that the
Church has been seen as separate from Israel for so long we
cannot imagine how all the puzzle pieces can become one picture.
That’s why its necessary to go back and examine the pieces more
carefully. We need to see who Israel really is from God’s
perspective; that is who is the Israel of God. And understand
who the Gentile Church really is. Once we clear up all the
confusion surrounding these two entities everything falls into
place, and you wonder why you never saw it before.
I’ll begin with the entity called
Israel.
An Israel within Israel
The term “Israel” is used in the
Bible three ways, and only three ways. It either refers to a
person, the whole nation, or part of the nation. The person of
course is Jacob (or Jesus). The nation is the nation as it
exists at any given time, whether as all 12 tribes or as the
surviving remnant (such as the Jews in the time of Jesus). And
the nation-in-part is either the ten-tribe northern kingdom
which was called the House of Israel, or it is the chosen
remnant (more about that shortly).
Now Separation Theology introduces
a fourth use of the term “Israel” when it defines the Gentile
Church as being “spiritual Israel,” as opposed to the Jews being
physical Israel. But the Bible never calls the Church “spiritual
Israel,” or says Gentile believers are the “spiritual seed of
Abraham.” Even Michael Brown admits that, when he writes:
“Actually the
terms “true Israel” or “spiritual Israel” never occur in the
Bible, and it might
be helpful to completely avoid them.” (pg. 129)
Yet, even though the Bible does not
allow us to divide the nation into “physical” and “spiritual”
Israel, it does reveal there are two Israel’s. One which is
populated by “natural children,” and the other by “children of
the promise.” The apostle Paul discusses these two Israel’s when
writing to the Church at Rome:
“It is not as though God’s word had
failed. For not all who are descended from Israel
are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they
all Abraham’s children....
In other words, it is not the natural children who are
God’s children, but it is the children
of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”
(Romans 9:6-8; NIV)
By distinguishing between “natural
children” and “children of promise” Paul was not talking about
Jews and Gentiles. As if the “natural children” were the Jews,
and the “children of promise” were the faith-filled folks from
outside the family. No, he’s saying all the children, both the
“natural” and the “ones of promise,” are physical offspring of
Abraham. But some are counted as God’s sons and some are not. He
uses Ishmael and Esau as examples of those who are considered
“natural children” (the NAS calls them, “children of the
flesh”). And Isaac and Jacob are “children of the promise.” All
are Abraham’s physical offspring, but some have been prechosen
to become part of the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). And some have
not - “so that God’s purpose according to His choice would
stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls” (Rom.
9:11).
The best way to think of it is to
see there is an Israel within Israel. All are physically
descended from Abraham, but only some are chosen. Unless that is
understood, any attempt to discern who Israel is, or is not, is
doomed to failure. God has chosen a portion of Abraham’s family
and said that eventually they, and only they, will be
Israel. They are “the branch of My planting” (Isa. 60:21), “the
Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The rest will not be included. That
is how God set it up. And that’s how it will be. End of story.
Did Jesus change the rules?
When Jesus came did the definition
of Israel change? That is, did God expand the rules so that
people with a different DNA who had the faith to believe might
now be brought into this Israel of God?
The answer to that question is a
resounding “no!” Let’s go back to the Scripture we just
considered:
“It is not as though God’s word had
failed. For not all who are descended from Israel
are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all
Abraham’s children.... In other
words, it is not the natural children who are God’s
children, but it is the children of the
promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” (Romans
9:6-8; NIV)
In his defense of ST, Prince
pointed to this Scripture as conclusive proof that the Gentiles
can never be considered part of Israel.
“By
using the words ‘not all’ at the beginning, Paul is not
expanding the number of
who is part of Israel; he’s limiting it. He’s not adding to
those who can be classified as
Israel, he’s subtracting. And I believe that is the true
meaning. So there are no legitimate
grounds for giving the title Israel to anybody not descended
from Israel.”
In other
words, Prince correctly saw that Paul, the apostle to the
Gentiles, is not being inclusive, but exclusive in his teaching.
That is, in this discussion of who from among Abraham’s family
is chosen or not, Paul was not suggesting the nation be expanded
to include those from other families. He was simply
reducing the number who qualify, like Ishmael and Esau. And by
extension, those Jews who were rejecting Jesus in his day. The
Israel of God then is only and always comprised of Abraham’s
physical descendants whom God has pre-chosen. God’s
Israel is always taken from within Israel. It is the faithline
within the bloodline. He never goes outside the family to find
others to act as substitutes when Israel goes astray, which is
what Replacement Theology teaches.
Now if you are starting to think,
“Wait a minute! I thought you said the solution to who is God’s
firstborn is to see that the born-again Church fits into Israel?
If Prince is right, then it’s impossible to count anybody as
Israel if they haven’t come forth from Abraham’s loins. So how
can Gentile followers of Jesus ever be included into Israel?”
Well, we could conclude we were
“adopted” into the family, except that the Scriptures do not
give us permission to say that. The word “adoption” appears five
times in the New Testament, and all five times the word is
applied only to believers being brought into God’s family
- never Abraham’s family (Rom. 8:15; 8:23; 94;
Gal. 4:5; Eph. 5:1). So if “adoption” doesn’t explain our
inclusion, how do we get in? The Scriptures don’t clearly spell
out how we get in. They just tell us we are. “If you
belong to Messiah, you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs
according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).
The only possible solution to this
age-old puzzle is found in a piece that neither Prince nor Brown
considered. Or if they did, they dismissed it without comment.
It is the missing piece I believe that allows us to reconcile
Romans 9 with the understanding that that there can only be “one
body... one Spirit...one hope of your calling...one Lord, one
faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph 4:4-6).
And yes, one Israel and one firstborn corporate son.
The mystery of the Gentiles
If the NT had ended at the 9th
chapter of the Book of Acts, the question of who is Israel would
have never even come up - because the only people in the Church
would have been Jews! But once Peter met Cornelius, and the
Gentiles started to flood into New Covenant Israel through
Paul’s ministry, the issue became hopelessly confused for
centuries. The Gentile minority grew to become the majority and
eventually obscured the original Hebraic identity of the Church.
Without that continuing Jewish identity and presence in the
Church, it no longer resembled New Covenant Israel. Yet it
still was!
So how can the Gentiles ever be considered part
of Israel if God’s Israel can only include the chosen physical
descendants of Abraham? The answer is that things aren’t always
as they seem. An old, politically-incorrect riddle asks: “If two
Indians are walking along a trail in the Arizona desert, one
behind the other, and the Indian in front is the son of the
Indian in back, but the Indian in back is not the father of the
Indian in front, what then is the relationship between the two
Indians?” Think about it for a minute. It’s a puzzler. Do you
know?
The obvious answer is that the Indian in back is
the mother of the Indian in front. Simple. Yet most people who
hear the riddle are initially stumped. Why? Because the word
“Indian” is automatically assumed to be male. Likewise, the word
“Gentile” is automatically assumed to be someone who is not
Jewish or has no blood relationship with the family of Abraham.
But that is not necessarily true. Many Jews, for example, have
assimilated among the Gentile peoples for one reason or another.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for example,
discovered late in life her parents were Jewish who had left her
with a Gentile family during the war. There are also unknown
thousands of Jewish offspring born out of wedlock who were never
informed of their heritage.
What’s more, we do know for certain that hundreds
of thousands of Israelites, ten of the twelve tribes of Israel,
were scattered abroad and absorbed by the Gentile nations in the
eighth century BC after Assyria conquered the northern kingdom
of Israel (see 2 Kings 17). Today their descendants would number
in the hundreds of millions and would no doubt be found in every
nation on earth. Therefore, isn’t it possible that we born-again
“Gentile” believers in Messiah could be their biological
descendants? Surely God knows who they are and where they went –
and how to find them again. Remember, it is the Father who leads
us to His son for salvation. Jesus himself told us that. “No
one can come to me, unless the Father draws him” (John
6:44). We don’t find Jesus on our own. Or even choose Him. We
were chosen by the Father in Jesus before the world was made”
(Eph 1:4). It just became a reality to us when God awakened
us by His spirit and gave us the grace to be born again. “For
grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works,
that no one should boast” (Eph. 2:8,9).
I am convinced after studying the Scriptures for
over thirty years that all true “Gentile” believers in Christ
who aren’t Jewish are physical descendants of Abraham from one
of the other tribes. This would perfectly fulfill the promise to
Abraham that “he would become the father of many Gentiles
(nations)” (Gen. 17:4). It would also satisfy the several
hundred as yet unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible where God’s
promise to reunite and restore all Israel under a Davidic king
known as the Messiah.
It also explains Jeremiah’s curious
prophetic promise that the New Covenant, as I discussed earlier,
would be made only “with the House of Judah and with the House
of Israel” (Jer. 31:31). The House of Judah, of course, is the
southern kingdom from whom the Jews derive their name. The House
of Israel is the northern kingdom (also called “Ephraim”) which
assimilated among the nations and has been missing for 2700
years. If we say the Gentiles in the Church are from other
families who have replaced them, is that not just another form
of Replacement Theology? How can we say it is wrong to replace
the Jews with Gentile Christians, and not say it is wrong to
replace Ephraim, the other half of the nation, with Gentile
believers?
Therefore, since these physical
descendants of Abraham from the northern kingdom are included in
the promise of the New Covenant, they must be found. Where are
they? Surely they are the so-called “Gentiles” who have been
grafted into the Body of Messiah! Which agrees with, and
answers, Prince’s main contention that “there
are no legitimate grounds for giving the title Israel to anybody
not descended from Israel.”
The last piece of the puzzle – the
biological-connection – is now satisfied and there is no reason
why all the believing Gentiles in the Church should not be
recognized as family and welcomed into New Covenant Israel with
open arms. The mystery is solved.
Conclusion
If Separation Theology goes
unchallenged it will hinder many Christians from joining the
final reunion with our chosen Jewish brothers as one nation when
the time comes. And that time is surely drawing near as more and
more Jews are coming out of their centuries-long, God-imposed
blindness towards Messiah. When the scales finally fall from
their eyes they will see him for who he is, and “will mourn for
him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly
over him, like the bitter weeping over a FIRSTBORN” (Zech. 12
10).
We want to be there when that happens to embrace
them as brothers and sisters. And join with them publically as
God’s one and only corporate son, the Israel of God.
“Now may
the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to
be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus,
so that with one
accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our
Lord Messiah Jesus.
Therefore, accept one another, just as Messiah also accepted us
to the glory of God.
For I say that Messiah has become a servant to the circumcision
(the Jews) on behalf
of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the
fathers, and for the Gentiles
to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, ….’Rejoice, O
Gentiles, with His people.’ ”
(Rom. 15: 5-10)
August, 2011
www.bhennessy.com |