It would be better and more accurate to say that Christ is the true Israel.
- The servant songs of Isaiah (41:8-9; 44:1-2,21; 45:4; 49:3) have a double referent. On one hand, they refer to the people of Israel. On another level they refer to an individual. The New Testament authors interpret this as referring to Christ (Mt 8:17 and Acts 8:30-35)
- Matthew sees Jesus as Israel in many of his statements of fulfilled prophesies in Christ. Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt I called my son" is one such double referent.
- Paul calls Jesus Christ as Abraham's seed, not physical Israel. (Gal 3:16)
- Gal 3:7 and Romans 4:11,16 identify the church as Abraham's offspring. See also Gal 3:26-29, Rom 2:28-29, Phil 3:3.
- The Old Covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:8-12) and is not applicable and will not be reinstated in a future millennial period ("obsolete" means "obsolete"). Also, the reference in this passage to the new covenant being with "Israel" means that the author is identifying the church as Israel.
- The Old Testament authors didn't understand their prophecies. 1 Peter 1:12 says that they looked into these things. Until Christ came and fulfilled his mission, the prophecies of the OT were unclear. We must use the NT to interpret the OT.
1 comment:
It doesn't work to say there is a double referent and then say Christ is true Israel. If Christ is true Israel then there is a single referent. To maintain there is a double referent is to ultimately support the dispensational position. Not all (perhaps not most) dispensationalists would support a double referent view - but rather that the author switches referents under the influence of the Holy Spirit. If there is a double referent then that absolutely maintains the distinctiveness of Israel from both Christ and the church - meaning that if the prophecy is fulfilled to Christ that those prophecies must be fulfilled separately in national Israel. And if that is the case, then this only serves to confirm that the prophecies with a single referent (national Israel) must also be fulfilled literally. If the grammar, syntax and vocabulary of the text gives no hint that God is talking about the church then unless God later interprets that text in the NT to say that it is the church (and He never does) then it must stand as being directly and literally a prophecy / promise concerning literal national Israel. If one is going to push for the NT interpreting the OT then there must be consistency and it is not right to read into OT texts what one thinks they mean based upon their theology. This is where many who hold to Covenant Theology make a serious mistake - using a theological hermeneutic. Dispensationalism is not a hermeneutic it is a theology derived from a grammatical, historical study of the texts. And, unfortunately, detractors think that dispensationalism is a hermeneutic - when in fact they are using a Covenantal hermeneutic to interpret the OT. This is not appropriate exegesis.
Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
www.biblicalintegrity.org
www.biblicalintegrity.org/blog
Post a Comment