Responses to Irael and New Covenant

Responses to Understanding Israel and the New Covenant (August 2002)

I got a number of letters from friends about my last letter to the elist. Here is one that capsulizes many of the others. I hope the process helps each of you sharpen your approach to the Word!

From: Loretta (This is my pastor's response to your New Covenant thoughts):

Dr. Smith’s New Covenant thoughts are helpful, but limited in their understanding of the significance of covenant and the biblical witness with regard to the “Old” and “New” Covenant. The theme of covenant is the unifying theme in scripture. One could say that covenant is the “golden thread” that ties all of scripture together, for covenant is the bedrock of salvific history.

To use the analogy of an access agreement to explain the concept of covenant is interesting, but it truncates the concept of covenant and diminishes its significance. The Hebrew word berith is rich and powerful when used of God. Every biblical covenant to which God is party is unilateral in origin. God
is the one who lays down the terms of the covenant. The terms may consist of commands and/or promises and human beings may accept or reject these but they are never up for negotiation. Every covenant is an expression of God’s sovereign will.

Dr. Smith is correct that the concept of “New Covenant” has its origin in the prophecy of Jeremiah found in the 31st chapter. He is also correct in the historical contextualization of this prophecy. However, his contention that Jesus’ use of the “new covenant” and other New Testament use was within the context of Jewish men is incorrect. Indeed, Romans 9 – 11 seems to suggest that, in God’s economy of salvation, there is still a place for Israel. Paul would suggest that God’s chosen are not abandoned by God and I would agree. The new covenant does not supplant the old; it fulfills it.

That notwithstanding, it is very clear that when the initial “Old” covenant was made between God and Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) the eventual inclusion of the gentile nations was envisioned. Through Abraham and his offspring all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Furthermore, Paul addresses this matter in the letter to the Galatians (not a church of Jewish men) when he states that it is people of faith who are children of Abraham (cf. Galatians 3:7-9, 13, 14, 26-29). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the superiority of the new covenant inaugurated by Christ (Hebrews 8). This
covenant, promised to Israel, has now been given to the New Testament church. Paul reminds the Corinthians in his second letter that Christ had made them ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6)—again, a letter with a gentile audience. In Ephesians 2:11-12 Paul states that the middle wall
(reference to temple imagery) is done away in Christ so that gentiles are no longer strangers and sojourners but are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God… Finally, Jesus parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt. 21:23-46) teaches this same truth. The audience was
comprised of chief priests and Pharisees to whom Jesus said that the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to a nation producing the fruits of it.

It seems very clear to me that the biblical witness is compelling. The biblical writers were perfectly aware of a new covenant having been promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Yet those writers claim with utmost certainty that the new covenant has been given to the disciples of
Jesus, the church. There is a continuous line of spiritual descent from Abraham to believers today so that indeed the church is the new Israel, the inheritors of the new covenant.

--------------------------------

Shalom Loretta:

Many thanks for taking the time to share this note with your Pastor. I wish I knew him, he sounds like a person who has thought through his approach to the text of God's Word. I encourage you to keep him very much in prayer, as those in authority spiritually are often the target of the enemy. I truly
believe that we need to pray for these men more and specifically, that they may be protected from any fiery dart. Let me very clear, whether I agree with his analysis of the letter I sent or not, as a brother in Messiah he is a precious leader of a flock. I want to do my best to teach the Word, but NEVER let it be used to undermine a relationship in a local church. This is not God's way. I can (and will) disagree with a number of statements he has made. Yet, I will rejoice in his work and victories that God will give your church through this leader. I want to deliberately encourage all my student's worldwide to respect the position of Pastoral authority, to love and pray for their shepherd, and yet feel free to question anything he, or I, or any other teacher of the Bible says, (always in an honest effort to find God's heart, not to undermine). If you sat in on our classes you know I expect to be questioned, and evaluated on the basis of the textual approach I offer.

As I suspect you will forward a copy of this to your Pastor, I want to be very careful to share some things he may not know about me. I have no desire to demean any theological approach, nor do I possess a rebellious spirit regarding his Pastoral authority. I want him to be successful in the Kingdom
work - I am on his team. If we had time together, we would no doubt have as much fun as I have had with the hundreds of Pastors in our various seminars. No matter what background and what points of agreement, if we agree on the Gospel, he will find me a faithful friend. I can learn from him and I do not
believe I have all the right answers. In addition, I believe (as I would bet your Pastor does) that we place a higher value on living out the character of a believer (what I call "living out the heart of God") then I do with getting it all right in the theological system (that is "knowing God's mind). Please know that this is NOT to be an excuse to be sloppy in the study, it is not. It is a simple acknowledgement that as a dad, I am more concerned that my children grow up walking in the character of Jesus, rather
than if they agree with my prophecy chart. I know both are important, but I choose character over theory. A Hebrew mind is more concerned with function over form, and so am I. I want kids that honor God in their heart, and marry people that do. If they end up in a church that is different than where I go, so be it. As long as they seek God with their whole heart, I will be a happy man. The rest is important, but secondary. Let's not lose sight of that in this discussion, either.

Loretta, in regard to the New Covenant, there are prevailing systematized approaches to understanding the Scripture. As with Bible prophecy, there are several "charts" of how the Bible's revelation works. The one carefully explained by your Pastor was what is traditionally known as the "Covenant" approach, developed over the centuries as a pattern of understanding by which the Scriptures seem to come together. It emphasizes the consistency of covenant relationship, and in fact follows the line that the point of the Biblical narrative is to reveal the Covenant keeping God. Another more recent theological approach (about two hundred years old in documentation) is a "Dispensational" approach which emphasizes that an unchanging God does in fact deal with men differently during different periods. There are at least another two, that are elements of the two already mentioned. I do not subscribe to either systematic approach wholly (nor do most clergy) as there
are problems with each approach, but I see alot of value to each. I believe I can argue effectively in a debate either position. Both make sense if you start with the presuppositions of their system, and then begin to interpret the Bible through the approach. They are both consistent, fair (in most
cases) and detailed. They both "work" and "make sense". My primary focus as a believer and an educator is not to move a group from one theology to another. I am not sensing God's call in my life to make that a vocation. Rather, I am concerned with outcomes.

I believe a great measure of the value of something is its outcome. The Bible uses the term "fruit". In the end, I put it this way: If you end up loving what God loves and hating what God hates, your system (with all its inherent flaws) is valuable. If, on the other hand, you end up despising what God loves, and loving what God hates, the system is worthless. Now I have lived long enough to know that I have not cornered the market on truth, there is much yet to learn. So, in deciding what is true, I look for what scenario most fits the character of my God, the picture that follows His heart, His way of doing things. Look at the case of the covenants as described in your letter through the eyes of a Jew, and it may look differently. I become concerned about the picture that says that I serve a God that made a promise to a man and his family to do something forever (for all their generations) - and then without delivering the full extent of that promise (changing the hearts of the children of the family, restoring the land promised to their fathers) was said to have changed it to another group that is a "spiritual" version
of the first. It sounds like a simple arrangement that was highjacked by a law firm. It doesn't sound like the God I serve. If you look at this from a Jewish point of view, it sounds like God doesn't keep promises, but is able to revise them without being held to the standard of honesty He sets on His
followers. It is because of this, I think the matter is worth a discussion.

In the case of your Pastor, he held out several excellent statements that I should highlight, because they were well thought out and well worth observing:

1. For a Covenant theologian, the first paragraph described the underlying premise - the Bible is about covenant. I think that is very true. The idea that the covenants are the "golden thread" is simple and straightforward.

2. I accept his criticism of my lame analogy of the "access agreement" falling far short of the target of truly expressing how rich and deep the term "Berith" is, it is deserving of much more than I was expressing, but the analogy seemed to be acceptable to make clear the object of the covenant - access to God. I agree that God unilaterally makes these agreements as an expression of His Holy and Sovereign will. It is interesting that he made that point, since several others have taken me to task to suggest that the covenant with Israel was conditional, and therefore later annulled. I find your Pastor's comments to be so good, I will clip them and send them to others concerning that issue.

3. I appreciated his agreement with the foundation of the term "New Covenant" from Jer. 31. It was helpful that we were both reporting the same origin. I further thought it was great that he saw a future for Israel based on the comments of Paul to the church at Rome, particularly in 11:25ff. I believe his comments to be correct, God is not finished with the physical children of Abraham. He has a future for them.

4. The insight that God has adopted into the spiritual family of Abraham those of us who were born again is, of course, an absolute truth of Scripture. I heartily agree that we are "children of Abraham" in the spiritual sense, and that we receive a great blessing from God to be a part of His household. I can see no other way in which passages like 1 Pet. 2:9 and 2 Cor. 3:6 should be understood. I agree completely that God has given all believers in Messiah complete access to the Holiest place, and destroyed the "wall of partition" as Paul told the Ephesians.

Now to the part that I suspect you are reading for, our differences. I will share these in the hopes that they will be used to cause you, and any others that read them, to a deeper longing to study the Word. I have no interest in a debate to prop up my so easily inflated ego (which needs no encouragement). Nor do I wish your Pastor to take time out of his Kingdom calling to be sidetracked in a discussion. You may share my thoughts with him, and I always welcome comments. Yet, I have no agenda to build a flock in opposition, and will stand with my brother (your Pastor) if he were unduly attacked. The fact is, I disagree with the process by which he made his conclusions. That would make precious little eternal difference, but I have a strong disagreement in his final conclusion. He echos a careful view
of replacement theology, i.e. "The This covenant, promised to Israel, has now been given to the New Testament church."

The case he made for this conclusion, is in his opinion a clear path through the Word of God. I disagree, and have two essential reasons:

1. An examination of each cited text does not lead me to the conclusions he came to, namely, that Israel promises made to Israel have been reallocated to the church. I will look at each of these passages, and you can evaluate if I have a tainted view, have erred in my understanding, or have properly understood each text. In any case, it will be up to you, and every other student to pray, study, and evaluate.

2. The New Testament church acknowledged a difference between Jews and Gentiles even after they came to Messiah. They were treated differently, their issues were different. This distinction does not fit into the conclusions drawn by my brother, so I will dispute the method of argumentation. In short, if the Church replaced Israel's position of promise, no deference should have been made to Jewish believers. They should have been undistinguishable in the early church, no longer Jews, but now New Testament Christians. Yet, I can offer much to show this was not the case.

Let me look carefully at each of these points, and you evaluate what I am writing:

First, let me examine each of the texts mentioned by your Pastor, and let's try to evaluate if they lead to the conclusion that Israel has been replaced by the church. I will break it down within the original statement that was made about each. I see five passages mentioned, so let us examine each with
the Pastor's comment:

I. "It is very clear that when the initial “Old” covenant was made between God and Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) the eventual inclusion of the gentile nations was envisioned. Through Abraham and his offspring all the nations of the earth would be blessed. "

Open your Bible and read Gen. 12:1-3. It is clear in the text that God promised Gentile nations a blessing IF they blessed Abraham and his children, and conversely offered the words of a promise to curse those that cursed Israel. It is clear that the nations would be blessed when Abraham obeyed the command at the end of 12:2. Remember the end of the verse is an imperative, "Be a blessing" not an observation (as the KJV sounds "though shalt be a blessing". The passage teaches: "Be a blessing. I will bless them that bless you (curse..), in you all the earth will recieve blessing. Most all teachers agree this is a veiled prophecy of Messiah Who would come to the world via the physical family line of Abraham, and that seemed to be what Peter was saying in Acts 3:25,26. I don't see anything that suggeststhat God would remove His promise to the physical children of Abraham when He blessed the world. It simply says that from one the blessing will flow to the other - not INSTEAD, but IN ADDITION to. I would argue nothing else was implied.

II. "Furthermore, Paul addresses this matter in the letter to the Galatians (not a church of Jewish men) when he states that it is people of faith who are children of Abraham (cf. Galatians 3:7-9, 13, 14, 26-29). "

It was a correct assumption that the church at Galatia was made up of a majority of non-Jews. The truth is, we don't know how many Jews or Gentiles were in it, but the writing appears to me to be to a body that are a majority of non-Jews (cp. Gal. 2:11-12 where both groups appear). The argument of Galatians is NOT about the position of Israel, nor about the value of the law. The argument is this: What is the formula of salvation? Does one need Jesus plus anything else, or is Jesus enough? It appears to be written because some are being pressed by Jewish people (the ones that Peter was worried about insulting in Gal. 2) to live according to the standards of Jewish law.

By saying that I am a "son of Abraham through faith" I am simply acknowledging an adoption that took place to a family of blessing. It is true that God had a family with children that have not been obedient. It is true that I am adopted into that family and I am spiritually an equal child to the spiritual blessings. It is NOT therefore true that I replace the original children, but rather that in my blessing, the disobedient children may be returned to a place of blessing.

Romans 11:11-12 assured the first century believers, "Have the Jewish people stumbled so that they should fall? May it never be! Rather, through their slipping salvation came to the Gentiles, and that will provoke them to jealousy. Now if this slipping away has lead to such a richness, and the diminishing of them has lead to such great things for the Gentiles, how much better will it be when they return in fullness?"

Does God cast off the natural children on behalf of the adopted ones, or does it appear that His Divine objective includes drawing back the physical sons of Abraham by showing them graphically the way a relationship with Him produces marvelous benefits?

If you are interested, here is a closer look at the Galatians theme. This is background, you may wish to skip below to the rest of the material.
---------------------------------
Galatians:

The argument of the book of Galatians has to do with what we will call the formula for justification before God. Paul's argument in the book follows in this way: (Divided by six chapters)

1) The gospel I came to preach to you in unchangeable (1:1-10), because it was given to me by the revelation of Jesus himself (1:11-17), and was evidenced by the miraculous change in my life (1:18-24).

2) The gospel of justification by faith in Jesus as our substitute (apart from any human work) is the gospel I have always preached, and can be tested against the case of Titus (2:1-3). The confusion over the gospel formula was introduced by false teachers (2:4-10), who desired to add to the formula. They desired to have you believe that "Faith in Jesus plus obedience to Judaic ceremonial law equals justification". This teaching was never endorsed by the Apostles (2:7-10), however even the Apostles confused the principle with some inconsistent personal practices (2:11,12). To clear the issue consider the following truths (2:15-21):

1. The purpose of the law and the purpose of the coming of Jesus were to fulfill two different ends. The law was given to direct us to our need, but Jesus came that we might see the grace of God provide for a need we were unable to meet.

2. If the law was able to provide for justification, then Jesus need not have come and died.

3) The evidence that God accepted you apart from any commitment to ceremonial law was manifest in you because you received the Spirit on the basis of your acceptance of Jesus alone (3:1-5). Lest you think that accepting people on the basis of faith alone is a new work of God, consider His work with Abraham (3:6-9), who was counted righteous by his faith. If you desire to add law to the formula for being declared righteous by God you must acknowledge three facts (10-14):

1. You are cursing yourself with a standard higher than you can keep, and the law will condemn you.

2. You will eventually settle for an exterior appearance of obedience, and never settle the heart issue of faith.

3. You are rejecting the work of Jesus in taking your place in judgement under the law and you are nullifying the very freedom he gave you.

Above these three facts, you must consider that the law came after the promise of God to Abraham (cp. Gen. 22), and must be considered only part of that greater plan (3:15-18). The promise to Abraham was both a nation and a future Messiah. The law did not negate or fulfill this promise.

What did the law do then? The law (which was mediated by men and angels) guided to the place where the promise (given directly by God) was fulfilled (3:19-20). Does the law hinder the fulfillment of the promise of God (3:21-22)? Absolutely not! The law could not fulfill the promise and produce life of itself. In fact, the Scripture leads us to understand our own unrighteousness unacceptability. The fulfillment of the promise can only be in the Messiah.

The law guided us to the fulfillment of the promise in the Messiah (3:23-29), but if we continue imposing the law in the justification formula, we are looking to be guided beyond the fulfillment of the promise. We have become identified with Jesus, and both Jew and Gentile are guided by Him as heirs to the promise of Abraham, fulfilled by his seed -- Jesus!

4) Children who are heirs are subject to servants and tutors as they grow up (4:1-7). These tutors were as the law to Israel. When God sent His son, he made it possible for us to receive the full inheritance of sons. I fear that you desire the security of being guided again now that you are free heirs. You are keeping observances as though you don't understand your position (4:8-11)! You have always listened intently to me when I was with you. Even when I was ill (4:12-20) you followed the truth of my instruction. I am trusting this will be the case in my absence.

Paul now directly addresses those (4:21-31) who are arguing for the formula of salvation which includes the law. He argues from a Genesis allegory, based on the two sons of Abraham. Gen. 16 records that Hagar (the maidservant of Sarah) came into Abraham and bore Ishmael. This practical
earthly solution was not as God intended to make the nation from Abraham. Later, Sarah bore Isaac who was the "child of the promise". The Apostle relates Hagar and Ishmael to the law and Isaac to the coming of the Messiah. Ishmael as a persecutor of Isaac was a "foreshadow" of the "faith plus law
for salvation" party in Galatia. Yet, Paul maintains that the blessing is with the children of Isaac.

5) In the application of the above truths, Paul asserts (1-12) thatthey must cling to the liberty of the "faith alone" formula, and not concede to any addition to this standard. He advises the removal of anyone who cannot abide by the standard of faith alone, and insists that adding to the standard will
compromise the clarity of the gospel. He then follows with an exhortation (13-15) to avoid misusing the liberty in a way that would not serve the others in their church community. He then specifies (5:16-26) that the Spirit can guide them away from misuse of liberty. Those who misuse their liberty demonstrate they are not His!

6) Paul asks them to turn to help those who have fallen, (1-10) having already commanded the removal of those who would not comply with his teaching. Some should be restored, other unrepentant ones should be shunned that they might correct themselves. God will show each that they reap what they sow. In 6:11-18 Paul brings the argument to bear in an undictated hand-written section that simply shows his absolute unwillingness to bend on the salvation "formula". He closes with a clear statement of his desire to depend solely on his faith in the work of Jesus as Messiah. His benediction includes mercy for those who accept this message, including the " Israel of God" (the Jew who found his Messiah in Jesus), lest he be seen as anti-Jewish!

Summary of Galatian Argument

Paul does not speak to the issue of allowing Jewish believers to maintain their obedience to the law. He speaks directly to the issue of trusting the law in part or in whole for justifcation. He does not insist that they not be circumcised, he insists that circumcision is irrelevant to living out one's faith in this economy, and that the practice has no positive effect on the observer's justification before God. The only possible argument for dispensing with the Jewish practices was the possibility of clouding the Gospel, and those could not include items commanded specifically by God.

--------------------------------------

III. "The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the superiority of the new covenant inaugurated by Christ (Hebrews 8). This covenant, promised to Israel, has now been given to the New Testament church."

Here is a critical link in the argument that God has cast off Israel. It is easy to read Hebrews 8 and conclude that God has cast off not only Israel, but replaced the Torah with another new law. That would be an error, though an understandable conclusion without background on the text. Hebrews as addressed to Jewish believers (an argument that the distinguishing marks of Jewish believers was NOT erased and melted into the NT church). The text answered the problems created by saying Jesus was a High Priest (since he was not of the Levitical line of priest that God had commanded all High Priests had to be). The writer argued in chapter 8 that:

1. We have a superior High Priest than the Aaronic Priests of the Temple and Tabernacle (8:1-2)
2. The place of service for Messiah was the Heavenly Temple (a better one), since He was not allowed to be a priest on earth (He was a Judahite, not Levite)- (8:3-5).
3. Messiah obtained a better priesthood, and offers a better (fully complete) covenant. The Levitical covenant that needed repeated offerings was inferior and incomplete. The first priesthood was flawed, and the priests and their whole sacrificial system was replaced by a better agreement (the once for all sacrifice of Messiah - 8:6-7).
4. Because God knew the priesthood and the sacrifices were incomplete in the Levitical agreement, he promised a new agreement (covenant) unlike the one He gave Moses in the wilderness. This one would be complete and final, and bring the final effect of bringing about the full promises of God to Israel, as He promised their fathers. They would have a new Ark for the law (their hearts) and a new priesthood (which they entered into to serve Him! 8:8-12)

Again the passage does not argue that God was replacing the Jewish people, rather that he had made plain the MEANS of keeping His original promise. Think of it this way: God made a promise, Jesus came and did the work necessary, and now Jewish people will slowly come to Jesus as Messiah, some
because of the jealousy over the relationship they see with Gentile believers. The days are yet ahead that will bring about the salvation of the other Jews, and that will be the final consumation of the New Covenant that God had promised their fathers.

The New Covenant then began with some Jews understanding that Messiah had come. Most didn't, and they are urged to come now. Yet, the promise of the eventual coming is still intact. That is why Paul knew they would eventually be saved (Rom. 11:26), and that God's promise to an "everlasting love" with that people was an irrevocable promise (Rom. 11:29).

Jeremiah 31 was quoted. Go back and read the passage. Isn't Israel named six times in those verses as the recipients of the promises contained there? Doesn't God say that He will only cast off Israel if the heavens can be measured (31:36,37)? It seems to me that any reading of Jeremiah 31:27-27 will cause one to question that God would ever reappropriate His promises to another group. He mentions the conditions, spells out the recipients and then says it is good for all time.

IV. "Paul reminds the Corinthians in his second letter that Christ had made them ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6)—again, a letter with a gentile audience. In Ephesians 2:11-12 Paul states that the middle wall (reference to temple imagery) is done away in Christ so that gentiles are no longer
strangers and sojourners but are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…"

I have no dispute with the notion that I joined the family, and that I have the family priveleges. I would remind you that the wall of partition (soreg) never stopped believing Jews from entering. The only thing that changed in the wall's fall was that Gentiles could now get to where believing Jews already were able to go. I am a Gentile believer, and I am not a second class citizen. In fact, I have the full blessing of God, and eat ham (something I am partial to). Yet, I encourage my Jewish believing friends to trust Messiah alone for salvation, then live according to the standards God clear told the Jewish people to live by "for all their generations". My Jewish staff will always be encouraged to maintain Sabbath (something the writer of Hebrews told early Messianics was for them - Heb 4). None of this implies I REPLACE them, just that I get all the priveleges an adopted in the Spirit child gets! (Rom. 8:12-17)!

V. "Finally, Jesus parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt. 21:23-46) teaches this same truth. The audience was comprised of chief priests and Pharisees to whom Jesus said that the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to a nation producing the fruits of it."

I guess this one is the most disturbing, since this was a passage (specifically 21:41) used by the church to justify killing Jews in the history of antisemitism. In Jesus' name, people were killed amid the
quotation that: "He will miserably destroy those wicked men.." I recognize that your Pastor isn't buying into that, and I want to assure you that I am not implying that. I simply cringe at the thought of God's Word being used that way.

It goes without saying I don't believe that the proper interpretation of the parable is that God has cast off Israel. If that were true, God's promise that the sins of Israel, for which they are guilty would not be forgiven. His promise in Isaiah 59 would not be "henceforth and forever" (59:21), but would be offered to those who were deemed better. The bottom line is that His promises in the whole last section of Isaiah would be null and void. Israel would never be the center of God's affection again, and the whole
"everlasting love" (Jer. 31:3) would have term limits, or the ability to be expropriated by a "better" people. (Scares me, I know alot about the church..)

Let's look at the parable for a short time (this has been a long one, I admit). Matthew placed the mashal (illustration or parable) in the frame of a discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees at the Temple, during His last week (Passion). Jesus had overturned the tables at the money changers the
day before (Palm Sunday) on the south porch of the Temple. Animals went everywhere, and left a mess all over the Temple. The leadership of the Temple was incensed. Monday he returned and they demanded an explanation of His authority to act as One in charge when THEY were in charge of the Temple (21:23-27). Jesus told them he would not tell them the answer if they could not take a public stand and answer if John the Baptizer was a true prophet. Jesus was not about to explain to them truth if they could not percieve and take a stand on truth. In this setting he offered two link illustrations,
then departed.

The first illustration was of two sons, one that rebelled and repented, another that gave lipservice and yet quietly rebelled. He equated the first son with harlots that heard John and then repented (having begun in rebellion). He equated the second son with THEM, for hearing about repentance, and quietly doing NOTHING! (21:28-32). The illustration was not directed against the whole nation, just those hard hearted leaders. THEY were the cause of the problem.

In the second illustration (cited by your Pastor) Jesus told of a man that built a farm and left it with a tenant farmer. When the time came to collect the fruit, the tenant killed every servant the owner sent, and eventually even the son of the farmer! This prophecy concerning His own death was remarkable! At the same time, the text need not reflect the idea that Jesus was taking the opportunity of God working with the Jewish people and handing it to the church. Indeed the second illustration, like the first, says that Jesus offered the leaders the opportunity to repent, but they passed. As a result, the opportunity would be left to another group of leaders, another time in the nation. It is clear the Pharisees thought Jesus spoke of THEM (21:45), not the Jewish nation. The term "ethnos" is elsewhere translated "a people", and does not always signify a "nation" as such. Clearly they were
not going to get the blessing of the Kingdom, yet the disciples that stood by still thought it was coming to Israel as promised. Later in the same Gospel, Jesus promised a day would come when they would believe (Mt. 23:39). The disciples questioned Jesus about it (23 and 24), and He made clear that
is was for a future generation, not theirs (Mt. 24:34).

Remember above I said I had two essential disagreements? Here is the second in a nutshell:

2. The New Testament church acknowledged a difference between Jews and Gentiles even after they came to Messiah. They were treated differently, their issues were different. This distinction does not fit into the conclusions drawn by my brother, so I will dispute the method of argumentation. In short, if the Church replaced Israel's position of promise, no deference should have been made to Jewish believers. They should have been undistinguishable in the early church, no longer Jews, but now New Testament Christians. Yet, I can offer much to show this was not the case.

Example 1.
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) began as a dispute in Antioch. Messianic Jewish men from the Jerusalem church had come to Antioch and began teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation. What they were saying, from a Jewish perspective makes perfect sense. Think about it: many felt it was not possible for people to come under the blessing of God unto salvation without coming into the Covenant relationship given to Abraham. That was the basis of the argument to make Gentiles that came to faith be circumcised. The point of circumcision is the symbol of the covenant, not
any other purpose. It seemed silly to assert that a person could come under the blessing of the covenant if they didn't have the symbol of the covenant on them. Beside that, if God intended non-Jews to come under the physical covenant of Abraham (or as I refer to it, their inheritance), than why not require them to be circumcised to join? Messianic believers today point out that salvation should not be clouded with circumcision, but then point to the idea that it should be done AFTER you come to faith. What purpose is it to distinguish between before or after they were saved if God had clearly
shown that for a Jew keeping the covenant of Abraham it was as an infant they were to be circumcised, before they could choose to believe in anything? It was not about their faith, it was about their parent's desire to keep the covenant with God. Was that consistent? I understand why they
were struggling in the first century, it was not a simple problem! In Acts 15, James sets out two standards for the church. He even uses the now dreaded "us" and "them" in his speech. He says, "we will not require of THEM anything but the following.. (15:19ff). James had TWO problems, one was the issue of the formula of salvation, and the other one was the issue of fellowship. How do you make salvation based solely on belief when one group is not allowed to eat with the other! (Peter's issue in Acts 10:28). It was a tough one. It seems ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the letters issued by James at the council stated the following: Any group that comes around teaching Gentile born believers in Messiah to be circumcised and keep the Torah is NOT AUTHORIZED BY US (Acts 15:24). We make no such command to Gentile born believers! It is also equally clear that James and the council did not accept Paul or anyone else teaching "JEWS who live among the Gentiles" to FORSAKE the Torah (Acts 21:20-21). Clearly, there are two standards maintained here. One for Jewish believers (Messianics), one for non-Jewish believers (I will use the term Christians).

Example 2: (Romans)
The issue of Romans was that Paul needed to describe how God could save a man entirely based on Divine grace through faith. If this were true (God saved that way), how could Paul justify living according to the Torah? He could, because He saw no inconsistency with keeping the Torah and yet being saved by Grace. Paul knew he was an Israelite (Rom 11:1) but had the new life by virtue of being a part of the remnant chosen in grace (11:5). He also knew that some Christians were not sensitive to what God had done through the Jewish people and he had to warn the non Jewish believers about their attitude (11:13ff). Notice he still made a distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish believers. His "all one in Messiah" language of other letters did not stop him here. I believe it is because he saw them as two people that were one in new life, but not identical in lifestyle. Paul argued that circumcision would not be of any value to anyone (in or out of the covenant) if it was not accompanied by faith, and he chastised Jews for claiming to be under the covenant while tarnishing the name of God (Rom. 2:17ff). The centerpiece of Romans is chapters 9-11 which extensively argue that God is not done with the Jewish people as a people.

Example 3: (Corinthians)
Paul issues the standard of 1 Cor. 7 in the midst of a passage on marriage and divorce. His clear command: "Stay what you are!" If you are not circumcised, then stay uncircumcised! (1 Cor. 7:18) I don't think he could be more clear. If it were his responsibility to get the churches to keep the
Torah, he does a miserable job! If it were to get Jews to stop being Jews and join the church, he was in trouble. Later, the only accusation made by the Jerusalem church later is that some reported he was telling JEWS not to keep the Torah, not Gentiles (Acts 21). Nobody mentioned an accusation against him about Gentiles not keeping the Torah. It looks like Paul understood their were two standards of obedience, and that could not be if one group replaced the other in God's economy.

Example 4: (Ephesians)
Paul's letter to this group is to a congregation that has not understood the high calling God had for them. The city was a pagan one, and had a synagogue (from which Paul had preached for a time). They were struggling with their own low view of themselves, and Paul showed them that God had called them to a high place! Their circumcision inside was as good as his outside one, because they were walking in faith (2:11). Yet he was the one who circumcised Timothy AFTER the Acts 15 council. It is obvious that some were, and some weren't. Would he have said that if they had been outwardly circumcised by him? Of course not. He reminded them that thought they had been estranged from God's covenant blessings, now they could be symbolically able to enter the holiest place of the Temple (Eph 2:11-22) as a people spiritually as acceptable to God as any circumcised Jew in the Temple. The middle wall of partition was broken to them (spiritually, it was still there physically in Jerusalem). Why do you suppose he needed to tell them that? There is extensive early record that Messianic Jews from Jerusalem had tried to make them feel they were insufficient to be accepted by God. Paul was telling them in no uncertain terms that they were different, but not less. They were all equal to access God's holy place, in spite of their birth. The "enmity" of the law (2:15) was not the law, the enmity he is speaking of is the wall that divided the holy place from the people, the wall of sin that
was shattered by God's unconditional love. We make up a new spiritual Temple of sorts (2:21), yet he still went to the physical one as a Jew. He went on to call Gentiles fellow heirs (3:6) but specifies that they are heirs of the Divine promise in Messiah by the good news, NOT that they have all the inheritance, nor that they have all the Torah of the Jewish people.

Example 5: (Philippians)
Again those who chose to teach Gentile believers that they needed to live under the Torah standard of circumcision are rebuffed in the teaching of Paul in Chapter 3. Paul warns them of several kinds of workers that are tunneling at the foundation of grace. (**Remember, I agree already that Paul believed every Jew should continue after salvation as a Jew under the Torah!) Paul is writing to a Gentile Roman colony with so few Jews in it there was no synagogue in town. He says to the likes of the Gentile

Philippian Jailer family (some of the founding members of the church) that he wants them to put their confidence in the spiritual work done in the heart, and NOT in physical circumcision. Why does he says that? Again, some well meaning Messianic believers were telling them they were incomplete
without circumcision and Torah, so Paul gives his pedigree and answers the objections. (3:4-9). Paul doesn't discount the value of the Torah in his life, he is trying to tell them that COMPARATIVELY it is less value than the life giving faith in Messiah. He keeps it, but they should not feel compelled to do more than press toward the mark of God (3:10ff).

In conclusion, Loretta, Gentile believers were told not to allow anyone to tell them to keep Sabbath (Col. 2:16) while Jewish believers were told that the Sabbath was still very much a part of a walk with God for Jewish believers (Heb. 4:9-10). Why? One letter was a congregation of Gentiles at Colossae, another to Jewish believers scattered abroad. There was, and is, a difference. I believe God is not done with Israel. They will be saved. Another generation will accept Messiah and God will give them the promises He set out in the desert so long ago.

I believe Islam can't kill off the promises, Crusades, Inquisitions and Holocaust cannot destroy the promises, and the church cannot replace the promises. God will do exactly what He promised to the people He made the promises to.

That's my look at it. Kick the tires and see if it works for you as you seek to honor Him! Thanks for taking the time to listen!

Blessings from high places!

Dr. Randall Smith,
Director