| |
You are here: Experts > Religion/Spirituality > Christianity - Catholicism > Catholics > Re:
Expert: Griff Ruby - 10/24/2009
Question
QUESTION: Dear Griff:All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the church is a continuation of Israel (replacement/covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism). Which one is it for the RC church?
Sincerely:
NEIL
ANSWER: "Continuation" is a far more accurate word than "replacement" since the latter implies taking something away and putting something else in its place.
A rather fascinating historical point that has not been brought up so far is the surprisingly smooth continuity between ancient Israel and the Church. The Jews back in the early second century, seeing how their faith had started becoming seriously Christian in many respects over the previous 500 years or so (from their time) arbitrarily decided to rule out everything of their holy books written since that time (ending, chronologically, with Malachi), and thus was born a new smaller "Jewish canon," as Jews (and also Protestants, for differing reasons of their own) would use to this day.
But in point of fact, the Jewish religion had been heading in a blatantly Christian direction for all of that time (and possibly quite a bit longer, though more latently, and sufficiently subtle and latent for the Jews to invent other non-Christian interpretations), the only easy and convenient "cut-off" point for the second century Jews in preparing their new smaller canon had been those books readily available in Hebrew/Aramaic versus those books for which the Hebrew or Aramaic original was not in their hands or else never existed (Hebrew/Aramaic of some of these books and fragments of others have since turned up, notably in the Dead Sea Scrolls), but basically in Greek only.
Jewish history in that times shows the Jews ceasing to confine their religion to their own physical nation, as not only did Jews disperse (and no longer under compulsion, as they had during the Babylonian captivity, but freely under their own choice), but even began overt evangelistic activities around the world. By the time of the New Testament one finds frequent references to "Jewish proselytes" all over the place. The translation of their holy books from the original Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek (the first time they were ever translated, apart from a very few fragments of the Hebrew being "updated" to Aramaic during the Temple restoration period of Ezra/Nehemiah) was done precisely to meet the needs of these new Gentile converts to Judaism who often did not know Hebrew or Aramaic but did (as practically everyone did then) know Greek.
Furthermore, the renderings into the Greek often tended in a decidedly Christian direction. A most startling and dramatic example is the translation of Isaiah 7:14 in which the original Hebrew simply has it that an "alma" (young woman of no particular virtue or distinction or accomplishment) shall conceive and call His name Emmanuel, and this is regarded as a "sign." When the Jews prepared the Greek translation, "alma" became "parthenos" which specifically means "pure one" or "true and completely virginal woman," (whose conception of Emmanuel truly would be a "sign," a remarkable occurrence), and thus correctly becoming a prophecy of the birth of Christ of the Virgin Mother.
There was only more and more talk of the coming of the Messiah such that by the time Christ really came along there were any number of other serious contenders, and people even thought John the Baptist might be that Messiah (though John made it clear that they were wrong to do so). Therefore, things really were pointing in a most decidedly Christian direction by the time Christ Himself finally came along, and with His death on the Cross and the founding of the Church on Pentecost, much of the Jewish ritual that pointed to an eventual coming of the Messiah and His sacrifice was now modified to reflect that the Messiah had already now come and already been sacrificed, still a big change to be sure, but remember also that all the original Christians (12 disciples -> 11 Apostles, along with at least hundreds, if not thousands, of others, were all Jews, and the Gentiles only came in (apart from the barest handful of individuals) after all too many Jews refused to accept the new status of God's own congregation.
There is therefore real and direct continuity between the Jewish nation of Israel and the Church founded by Christ, so the Church is not merely some alien religion suddenly and unexpectedly imposed upon an uncomprehending world, but a natural (and yet also supernatural) outgrowth of what already existed as the Jewish nation.
The Jews of course do not want to admit that continuity because to do so would require their "conversion" to Christianity, hence their cutting off of all Bible books written from about the time that this trend was becoming too clear to ignore. The Protestants, not liking the idea of persons praying for the dead (which devout Jews then and now all do, by the way), especially in anything they are willing to call Scripture, eventually came to follow the Jewish canon as merely a way to crop out 2 Maccabees in which this prayer for the dead is expressly mentioned. In terms of establishing any real doubt for the practice of praying for the dead, removing it from the canon of Scripture accomplishes nothing, for the fact of the practice (then and now) is indisputable. But taking it out of the Bible does make it far less known to the rank and file Protestant, for most of whom the "Apocrypha" (apart from, rarely, some rather cursory reading) is unworthy of their scripture study time.
Unhappily however, the removal of these books has the unfortunate effect of making it seem like God was silent for at least 400 years, and most serious of all, by eliminating these books, the continuity between what existed up to Malachi and that found in the Gospels and New Testament is utterly lost, giving the appearance of two different and unrelated religions instead of one that gradually matures and develops into the other as true history bears out. Only a grave ignorance of this history can make possible such a hypothesis of a "church [which is] completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism)." I should also point out that I don't believe that most, or even all that many, advocates of "dispensationalism" or of "premillennialism" would share your unusual view of the Church being something completely new and alien from history Israel. The classic dispensational view is not that God gives one revelation to one person, for him and all his descendants to follow, but then some other and different revelation to some other person unrelated to that first person (and his descendants following in the revelation given to him), and then the same over and over again with different and unrelated peoples. From what I have seen and know of dispensationalism, there remains a clear continuity of a single group of people who specifically belong to God and follow His revelation, and that the revelation is enlarged and expanded upon for the whole of this group of people from time to time. The Jews of Egypt about to be delivered knew only the faith of Abraham, but in their own time were given the Law of Moses, not Moses just comes along and starts up something new with somebody else.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Dear Griff: You said, "Only a grave ignorance of this history can make possible such a hypothesis of a "church [which is] completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism)." I should also point out that I don't believe that most, or even all that many, advocates of "dispensationalism" or of "premillennialism" would share your unusual view of the Church being something completely new and alien from history Israel".
My unusual view? Did you mean to say what the Bible has to say, and what history has to say? Let's take a look, shall we? For if you believe the church is a continuation of Israel, that is in stark contrast to what the Bible has to say, and is also anti-semitic, to get a Jewish teaching of a coming Messiah OUT of the Christian faith, started by the Jew hater, Origen and his cohorts Ambrose and Augustine. Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. All the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel can be divided into two camps: either the church is a continuation of Israel (replacement/covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism).
Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. So, the prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are “spiritualized” or “allegorized” into promises of God's blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God, and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1900 years?
The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is completely different and distinct from Israel, and the two are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings are valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God's program during these past 2000 years of dispersion.
After the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth, at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel which survives the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1-5).
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God's plan for Israel. Even so, the strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1-7, where it says six times that Christ's kingdom will last 1000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God's plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11).
Conjecture Griff? No, just the clear teaching of Scripture.
Sincerely:
Neil
Answer
Technically, I should have clicked the response that reads "there is no question here."
But I finally did something I probably should have done at the beginning, and that is do a Google search on the phrase "replacement theology." One thing that emerges clear about it is that the term was coined in 1989, and as I had left the Protestant milieu in 1987 I missed its creation. In all my previous-to-that years as a Protestant (and many of them a well-informed and doctrinaire dispensationalist) I never once came across that phrase for the simple reason that it had not been coined as yet, and the older (pre-1989) dispensationalists never spoke in such terms. In those days, dispensationalists simply spoke in terms of dispensations, that is, God revealed so much to Adam (first dispensation), revealed more to Enoch, then more to Noah, then more to Abraham, then much more to Moses, then through (and as) Christ, and finally after the end of the world "new scrolls are opened" signaling yet another dispensation yet to come after the end of time as we know it.
But apparently, the term seems to have caught on some some limited circles ("Supersessionism" is an older term, but which really means something else more Catholic and more sophisticated and nuanced than the "replacement theology" caricature that no one believes). This difference is amply indicated in the following from Wikipedia:
In contrast to Protestantism, Roman Catholicism has an intricate formal system of checks and balances on biblical interpretation. In an effort to safeguard reliability, it provides a hierarchy of sources, stretching from the absolute authority of the Bible and ex cathedra papal declarations, through approved Church Fathers, right down to authorized, active theological researchers. In this way, Catholicism seeks to serve its members with trustworthy official positions on biblical issues.
Supersessionism is not the name of any official Catholic doctrine and the word appears in no Church documents; however, the Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church does not teach an extreme or "crude" supersessionism (see: Avery Cardinal Dulles) that considers the Jewish people themselves as effectively irrelevant in terms of eschatology and Biblical prophecy. The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church. [2] Additionally, the Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture. [3]
The Church’s teaching regarding the fulfillment and replacement of the Mosaic Covenant by the New Covenant in Christ can be found in the Scriptures, the Fathers and various Magisterial documents:
At a Jewish synagogue, St. Paul preached the following: “Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him every one that believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:38–39) In the book of Hebrews, it is written: “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect).” (Heb. 7:18)
St. Justin Martyr states in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, “We do not trust through Moses or through the law” because there is “a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe,” and “law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one.”
St. Augustine writes: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.’ [Jer 31:31–32] Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the new covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit.” (Letters, 75, 4)
Pope Pius XII, enyclical Mystici corporis (1943) states: By the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” (paragraph 29)
Now, in looking it up I have found a few helpful blogs on the issue. I can't say that I necessarily agree with them on every point, but I can say that can go much further than anything I can come up with:
I am concerned with the full – throated denunciations of replacement theology by evangelical and liberal Christians. The reason is that doing so almost inevitably leads down the path that starts with de – emphasizing important and fundamental Christian doctrine and ends with dual covenant theology. Why are we so afraid of causing offense to our Jewish friends on this matter? We should respect their feelings, but we cannot allow our doctrines to be governed by said feelings. And moreover, why are do we give any more considerations to the feelings of Jews than we do Muslims, Hindus, wiccans, etc.? Do we feel that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and eternal life or don’t we? Thus, if Judaism will not result in the salvation of a person from an eternity in the lake of fire, then what profit is there in it? In what way is it superior to satanism or witchcraft?
There is a point to my absurd reductionism here. One of the things that began to turn me away from the ministry of John Hagee was when he started having Orthodox rabbis on his show, and they would actually discuss things concerning God and scripture. Of course, Jesus Christ was never mentioned. Hagee knew perfectly well that the rabbis that he was putting on his TV show will go to the lake of fire for eternity unless he accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. Would Hagee have put a Muslim or Mormon on his show and talk about scripture with them? After all, you can talk about Jesus Christ in front of a Mormon or Muslim all you want and they won’t get the least bit offended! Of course not! Now as it was from Hagee that I first learned of the term “replacement theology” and how awful it was – responsible for the Holocaust he claims – and now I am wondering if it is all a scam. After all, has Hagee had Messianic Jewish rabbis on his show? Gary Hedrick, one of the most prominent Messianic Jews in this country, is right in Hagee’s San Antonio. If he has, I never saw them, and the answer is almost certainly no because affiliating with Messianic Jews would end Hagee’s political relationships with AIPAC and similar concerns in America and Israel that he has used to become quite influential.
But wait, you say, Jews and Christians worship the same God, so my comparison with Muslims, Mormons, and certainly satanists is wrong. No we don’t. The only way that you worship God is in spirit and in truth (John 4:22-24), which means that God can only be worshiped in the manner that He tells us to. When Christ spoke those words to the Samaritan woman, he was summarizing the commandments given to the Jews in the Torah where God commanded that their worship of Him not emulate the practices of pagan religions, so Christ did not give a new revelation in this regards: it is integral to Judaism (Christians, regrettably, have been more than willing to syncretize our worship with pagan and humanistic beliefs and practices unfortunately). So what did God say in John 14:6? “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” In this dispensation, the only way to worship God is to acknowledge Jesus Christ as God and worship the Father through Him with the Holy Spirit as the Intercessor. Now of course, the Jews were doing this in the Old Testament, but had no knowledge of it. But when that knowledge was revealed to them, they rejected it. As such, since they refuse to worship Jesus Christ as God, then they are not worshiping the true God. Christians that pretend otherwise, quite frankly, are either dual covenant theologists or are giving silent assent to what they know to be a lie. The New Testament, especially Hebrews and Romans, states repeatedly that there is no profit to the religion of the Jews without Christ.
Ah, but Christianity came from Judaism so we have to respect it, they say! As a matter of fact, it is becoming quite fashionable in recent times to say that Jesus Christ never intended to start a new religion. Well, that line of thinking actually helps replacement theology, because Jesus Christ explicitly stated that His purpose was to fulfill the law and that the Jews should forsake what they were practicing before and to follow Him, for He alone was the way. Even after the term “Christian” was first applied to the largely Gentile church at Antioch, it was not applied to Jews that believed upon the resurrection of Yeshua HaMashiach. Rather, they were called “the way” or “Nazarenes.” During the early part of Christ’s ministry, He tried to convince the Jews that the kingdom at heaven was at hand and to follow Him. It was only after He was rejected by Jews that He laid the foundation for the church (Himself) by intensively training and teaching the apostles.
Christ obviously tried to replace the Judaism of the day with worship that acknowledged Him as the Son of God but was rejected, see John 5:18 “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” After the Jews rejected the Stone, Christ built the church to take on the role that the Jews rejected. By virtue of the church doing what the Jews would not do, their entering the Promised Land when the Jews forbeared as their forefathers did when they left Egypt and as a result all save Joshua and Caleb died in the wilderness (a remnant that pretty much represents the Messianic Jews of today), clearly the church assumed the role that was originally intended for Israel, and in real spiritual terms replaced Israel. The church is now the vehicle by which God’s Will is done and His Presence made known upon the earth. Claiming otherwise is to deny the entirety of the New Testament.
Now this is where I part ways with Hank Hanegraaf and a great many other Christians that deeply resent Jews and in particular the nation of Israel, and as such have to basically declare Revelation to be mere political resistance literature to justify their antipathy (completely ignoring that Revelation expounds upon Matthew 24 and the endtimes teachings of Paul, Jude, and the other epistles from John). First, you have Romans 11:1-2a. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” And even more so, you have what makes my comparisons with Judaism and other religions extremely problematic superficially. Romans 3:1-4 reads “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”
Yes, the Mosaic covenant is broken and done away with. Not that you would ever know that from listening to John Hagee, who not only preaches the false prosperity doctrine based on it, but actually claims that Christians will be cursed under the terms of the old covenant for not tithing. But the covenant with Abraham is still in effect! Genesis 12:1-3 reads “Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Now please realize that the portion in bold has already been fulfilled by way of Jesus Christ, the one who brought salvation to every nation, was a descendant of Abraham. But the rest? It is still very much in effect.
So, did I bring a curse upon myself by saying that Jews do not worship the same God as we do and there is no difference between being a Jew and a satanist? How did I avoid transgressing Romans 3:1-4? Simple. My former statement was confirmed in Romans 2:16-29. Please notice such excerpts from that passage as “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written” and “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” As for my latter statement, I limited its terms to eternal salvation only.
But even as the church is incontrovertibly the spiritual and true descendants of Abraham, it is equally incontrovertible that because of God’s unconditional covenant with that same Abraham that in a natural sense his descendants are God’s chosen, elect people. This was demonstrated by the fact that God, even after their breaking the covenant and taking away the natural monarchy (the spiritual Davidic monarch, the true monarch, is Jesus Christ), God still restored them to their land. Some would say that the chosen status was entirely transferred to Jesus Christ, who became the personification of Israel. As such, those who are saved are in Christ and therefore are spiritually “living in Israel.” I do not disagree. But the problem is that a spiritual single reference interpretation does not solve the problem of Romans 3:1-4. There has to be a dual reference interpretation: one that applies naturally to the Jews and spiritually to the church. That certain Christians are unwilling to do that and in the course of doing so reject Revelation (and with it not only the long line of prior prophetic and eschatological passages that serve as the foundation of Revelation, but also the warnings to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 and virtually everything straightforward that we know about the final resurrection and judgment) is not replacement theology. Rather, it is simply rejecting parts of scripture that they find disagreeable. The re – establishment of Israel proves that Romans 3:1-4 is true and that Genesis 12:1-3 is still in effect.
That isn’t a problem with me, because if Romans 3:1-4 and Genesis 12:1-3 are true, then it means that John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10 are true too, and therefore that I am going to be with God for eternity rather than in the lake of fire. But it is a problem for a great many professed Christians who root for the collapse of the state of Israel (starting with its self – immolation by way of making a peace deal with Palestine) because to them that would prove that Genesis 12:1-3 has been transferred away from the Jews and to them. Why? Simple jealousy. They cannot stand being second place in any context. It doesn’t matter that their being second place is only for a time so that the very same God that they are trusting for their salvation based on His Word can keep the promise that He made with Abraham and thereby be true to that very same Word. But regardless of what they tell themselves in their rebellious hearts, Genesis 12:1-3 is still true. Because of Genesis 12:1-3, God is not through dealing with the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. Because of the promise to Abraham, the Jews and Israel are still going to be the central characters and have the leading role as the last days of history play out.
What will that role be? The end will not come until Israel, as a nation, undoes the wrong that they committed about 2000 years ago by accepting Jesus Christ as their Messiah and their God. Revelation 1:7 “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” Messianic Jew Randy Weiss of Crosstalk.org theorizes that this will happen when the entire nation of Israel in unison cries out to God in to save them from the armies that come against them during Armaggeddon. According to Weiss, the whole nation will be screaming “God save us!”, at which time Jesus Christ will return and do just that. At that time will be impossible to deny, for the Hebrew Name of Jesus, Y’shua, means “God saves.” How will they be forced to acknowledge that it is the Christian Jesus Christ rather than the Messiah that rabbinic Judaism teaches that they are still awaiting? Well, “and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him” would tend to mean that the wounds in His side and hands, the same ones that doubting Thomas said that he had to see and touch before he would believe, will still be there. In that respect, just as Judas Iscariot was the prototype for the members of his nation that rejected Christ and will eternally perish up until that day, Thomas was the prototype for the members of the Jewish nation that have been predestined by God to survive the great tribulation, see Jesus Christ on that day, repent, and be saved: those that will never believe unless they see (John 4:48) what the church believed without seeing and are called blessed because of it.
Why must history play out in this fashion? Think not of it in terms of the Jews being so special. (Which is not to say that the Jews AREN’T special; they just are, OK, so you just have to accept that and if you cannot well then it is on your head.) Instead, it is all about GOD. It is all about GOD being glorified for His Great Name’s sake. Please recall when Moses made his intercession for the children of Israel after they sinned in the desert. What did Moses say? Think of destroying Your nation would mean for YOUR NAME; how it would be viewed by Egypt and the other nations of the world. Does God need vindication, acknowledgment, and glorification from whom He desires to seek it? No. But does He WANT and DESERVE it? Of course He does. So for the sake of His Own Name and His Own Son, God is not going to countenance corporate rejection by His own elect nation, the very nation that He chose to bear His Name (1 Kings 8:29). If you want to say “Well now the church is God’s nation that carries His Name” … well OK then why didn’t God just destroy Israel in the desert? After all, He would have still had Moses to carry on the promise to Abraham through.
Whether their number will be great or small, Israel will as a nation accept Jesus Christ before the nations of the world so that God will be glorified. And it is because of that, the Will and Glory of God, that the church HAD to replace Israel spiritually but CANNOT replace Israel naturally.
And another:
A growing number of scholars have come to question this supersessionist approach, and now emphasize Jesus’ continuity with and “fulfillment” of his Jewish predecessors, but replacement remains the default view in most studies, and polemical overtones often appear even in those that emphasize fulfillment. For a variety of reasons, I think this paradigm distorts our understanding of John’s–very Jewish–Gospel and distracts from his more central Christological and Theological purposes. I’ll be exploring those reasons in my thesis and don’t want to detail them just yet, but yesterday I was struck by an analogy that, I think, captures very well John’s point as I understand it, and may be of wider interest:
Imagine a king went away on a journey and left a regent to govern in his stead. The regent is charged with reminding his people of the king’s wishes and keeping them expectant of his eventual return. The regent does his job well, but when the king finally does return, it is in a manner that no one expects, and most do not recognize him as the king at all. At that point, the king’s regent is, technically speaking, no longer necessary–no one needs to ask the regent about the king’s wishes because they can now ask the king directly–but since the regent is one of the few who knows the king’s true identity, he does continue to serve as a “witness” to that fact, valuable to those who have come to trust the regent but are not yet convinced that this late-comer is truly their king.
Now as far as the regent continues to do his job well, he becomes in a sense “obsolete,” for those who do listen to him and recognize their king no longer “need” the regent, but he is not thereby “replaced” by the king, for he is and always was the king’s agent. Thus, it is not a case of supersession, as when one king replaces another, for the king and his regent have always been in different categories. The regent always was a mere “witness” to the king’s identity and purposes, so this is not some new change in his role after the king returns; it is rather the fulfillment of the role he was charged with from the beginning.
Such is how, I believe, John views Moses, the Torah and the Temple. As the incarnation of the one God of Israel, Jesus does not replace those “predecessors” (after all, he thinks Jesus, as the logos, predates them), nor is their status as “witnesses” (John 5) a demotion from their previous roles. Instead, John seems to be saying that this is the purpose they have always served. Jesus is not a new Moses, a new Torah or a new Temple, but the divine king to whom all three have always pointed.
Finally, a few closing thoughts of my own on this: In Matthew 21:43 our Lord says to those who rejected Him "Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Going back to the grafting on of branches, if ever you have done some literal grafting (as I have done, seeing how my own father used to do it a lot), you cut off an unwanted branch, producing a "stub" to which the new branch (of about the same diameter) you want to graft in can be attached, so they will grow together. Many Jewish branches of Israel (but not all) were cut off because they were unfruitful, hence making room for new Sameritan and Gentile branches to be grafted in. All branches on the tree, whether remaining on the tree from originally, or grafted in later on, comprise the one Body of Christ, the one true Church, and that alone is God's Covenant People. Fleshly Israel, having rejected Christ, consists of those other unfruitful branches that were cut off. What few basic promises as remain with them are similar in nature to the promises that remain with Ishmael and his descendants. As Ishmael preceded Isaac, the Nation of Israel precedes the "Jerusalem above" which is free and our Mother (the Church). (Galations 4:21-31) That is the clear teaching of Scripture. Your rejection of the Catholic Church's teaching on this topic is in fact a rejection of the teaching of Scripture itself.
Add to this Answer Ask a Question
|
|
