Patching the Israel-flaw in Covenant Theology

[JAL]

Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?

My version of Covenant Theology accepts no distinctions between OT and NT saints. Thus:
(1) OT and NT saints are all saved under the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3).
(2) Justification, regeneration, sanctification, and (charismatic) power-in-mission are the same for OT and NT saints.

But let's be honest. Paul's discussion of Israel in Romans 11 is a bit of a bump in the road for Covenant Theology. Given that justification by faith is the only way of salvation, how can Paul claim that:

"And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).

This is a problem because Jews are daily dying and going to hell, having not been justified by faith. And yet Paul even refers to the whole nation of Israel as the elect of God (verse 28) !!!!

Covenant Theology claims to resolve this apparent contradiction by classifying the church as "spiritual Israel". Yet the bump in the road remains, because Romans 11 is clearly speaking nationalistically, not "spiritually". Again, this is what Paul said:

"And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).

It's a pretty torturous exegesis that reads the Israel of that verse as the church (spiritual Israel). In my next post, I will provide a solution. I will describe a world view that allows for a literal reading of Paul's words.

 

[JAL]

Although I am a firm believer in Original Sin (Romans 5), the traditional version is problematical. Please read the opening post on this thread for my solution to the problem of Adam.

In my view, then, God, after the Fall, redistributed Adam's material soul. Each of us is a piece of that soul. God didn't 'give' me a sinful nature. I am sinful in nature because I am the Adam who sinned, or at least a piece of him. In fact I'm even going to use a dirty word here. In a sense I am a reincarnation of Adam. This is not the automatic-reincarnation of false religions. It is the hand of a sovereign God redistributing Adam's soul as He pleases.

This raises the question - how many lives is it possible for me to live? After I die, couldn't God reincarnate me again? Yes, although generally I don't think it happens often. Yet didn't Hebrews say it is appointed for man to die only once? Death is experiencing the biological cessation of heart and brain activity. If God intends to reincarnate someone, He can withdraw their soul a moment prior to biological death.

Again, I don't think it happens often - EXCEPT for Israel. In my view, Israel is a kind of everlasting generation (for lack of a better word). This is how God intends to fulfill His promise to the nation of Israel. I'm not saying that every Israelite is repeatedly reincarnated. What I'm saying is that, with respect to the original Israelites who left Egypt - the set of souls who received the promises from Moses - each of them will be reincarnated at least until they come to saving faith in Christ. This means that:
(1) Modern Jews are not necessarily included. Or as Paul puts it at Romans 9:6, "Not all who are of Israel, are Israel". See point #2 for clarification.
(2) The original Israeli souls (from the days of Moses) are most likely scattered among the nations. This means that any of us Christians might be one of those souls - even though we don't currently remember our past life as it was in the days of Moses.

While I can't prove my claim apodictically, I can cite a few verses that seem to suggest that Israel is indeed an everlasting generation. I'll do that in my next post.

 

[JAL]

Israel as Everlasting Generation

Even R.C. Sproul fell into the error of preterism. This is somewhat understandable given the following verse:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mat 24:34).

In the above verse, Jesus implies that His own generation of Jews will still be alive to see His 2nd coming! Preterism resolves it by claiming that the 2nd coming already occurred back in 70 AD, but preterism faces problems of its own. Non-preterists typically equate "this generation" with the final generation, but this reduces Christ's words to the rather stupid remark, "That final generation will be alive for the events of that final generation." My solution, on the other hand, is seamless - Israel is an everlasting generation.

Debates regarding the above verse often overlook the fact that the same issue arises in the preceding chapter (Mat 23) where Jesus indicts "this generation" for killing all the prophets:

"And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation."

Here too, the only perfectly seamless reading involves regarding Israel as an everlasting generation. Here are some similar verses:

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Mat 10:23).

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Mat 16:28).

Here's a fact of the Olivet Discourse that is regularly overlooked. In that delivery, He speaks to His disciples as though they will be alive to see His 2nd coming. For example:

"At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (Luke 11).

 

[Al Touthentop]

Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?

My version of Covenant Theology accepts no distinctions between OT and NT saints. Thus:
(1) OT and NT saints are all saved under the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3).
(2) Justification, regeneration, sanctification, and (charismatic) power-in-mission are the same for OT and NT saints.

But let's be honest. Paul's discussion of Israel in Romans 11 is a bit of a bump in the road for Covenant Theology. Given that justification by faith is the only way of salvation, how can Paul claim that:

"And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).

This is a problem because Jews are daily dying and going to hell, having not been justified by faith. And yet Paul even refers to the whole nation of Israel as the elect of God (verse 28) !!!!

Covenant Theology claims to resolve this apparent contradiction by classifying the church as "spiritual Israel". Yet the bump in the road remains, because Romans 11 is clearly speaking nationalistically, not "spiritually". Again, this is what Paul said:

"And so all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:26).

It's a pretty torturous exegesis that reads the Israel of that verse as the church (spiritual Israel). In my next post, I will provide a solution. I will describe a world view that allows for a literal reading of Paul's words.

"One is not a Jew who is one outwardly."

The "All Israel" that Paul was talking about was indeed the Church. He also explained that baptism was "the circumcision not made with hands," having repudiated the physical circumcision's requirements and teaching that the Old Law was dead. In Hebrews he makes it clear that the New Covanent was better than the Old and for what reasons. He urged Jews, both Christians and unbelievers, to recognize and embrace the gospel.


Jame's wrote to the "twelve tribes" and its clear he was addressing the church, not Jews who hadn't obeyed the gospel. The gospels didn't label doctrine "Covenant Theology" it was "the apostles doctrine."

The modern nation of Israel doesn't have much at all to do with the old nation of Israel other than by coincidence of its location. Jews can't even properly adhere to the law of Moses even if they were to build a temple.

 

[JAL]

"One is not a Jew who is one outwardly."

The "All Israel" that Paul was talking about was indeed the Church. He also explained that baptism was "the circumcision not made with hands," having repudiated the physical circumcision's requirements and teaching that the Old Law was dead. In Hebrews he makes it clear that the New Covanent was better than the Old and for what reasons. He urged Jews, both Christians and unbelievers, to recognize and embrace the gospel.


Jame's wrote to the "twelve tribes" and its clear he was addressing the church, not Jews who hadn't obeyed the gospel. The gospels didn't label doctrine "Covenant Theology" it was "the apostles doctrine."

Regardless of whether the NT uses the metaphor of a spiritual Israel in some places, that literary tactic is not in play at Romans 11 where Paul, quite clearly it seems to me, is referring to the actual nation of Israel.

By the way I don't accept any Old-Covenant/New Covenant distinctions. Acccording to Galatian 3:15, no covevant could set aside - or even modify - the terms of the Abrahamic covenant. All of us are under ONE covenant of grace secured for us, as God's gift, via Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.

The modern nation of Israel doesn't have much at all to do with the old nation of Israel other than by coincidence of its location. Jews can't even properly adhere to the law of Moses even if they were to build a temple.

Not sure what point you are making here. Is this a reply to something I wrote?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Israel as Everlasting Generation

Even R.C. Sproul fell into the error of preterism. This is somewhat understandable given the following verse:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mat 24:34).

In the above verse, Jesus implies that His own generation of Jews will still be alive to see His 2nd coming! .

Only if he was talking about his second coming. He wasn't. He was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. That's a time passage. God's time passages must be respected. The near demonstrative pronoun there is specific (αὕτη). Had he wanted to indicate a time long in the future he wouldn't have said it that way.

Bible study requires us to submit to the word. He says "until ALL these things have happened." Because some of those things seem to have a meaning we're certain of (Christ's second comng!) and we can't reconcile this because, "I'm certain that hasn't happened yet," then some other possibility has to be available to us which reconciles with God's infallible word.

The most logical one, one that doesn't make Christ a liar, is that all those things took place and he wasn't talking about his second coming. Even though the language he used seems to be talking about the Judgement Day, it must not be. One plausible explanation is that he is talking about his coming or his spiritual presence in judgement of Jerusalem, not of the whole world. They were to recognize that the destruction of Israel was by his hand. His wrath would be poured out on those who after 40 years still refused to submit to God.

In order for the old Covenant to be wiped out completely, the temple had to be destroyed and the sacrifices had to be stopped. Jesus had already caused them to "cease" in the middle of the 70th week through his sacrifice becoming the new spiritual temple rebuilt when he was resurrected (See John 2:18-23). The temple sacrifices no longer provided atonement the day Jesus declared "it is finished." He had already given them plenty of time to be baptized before that point and would even continue giving them that opportunity for another 37 years or so.

Time was up for the Old Covenant.

 

[JAL]

Al Touthentop,

Actually I'm not sure what you responded to. Much of your post doesn't seem to be a reply to what I wrote. Having trouble connecting the dots here.

 

[Al Touthentop]

By the way I don't accept any Old-Covenant/New Covenant distinctions. Acccording to Galatian 3:15, no covevant could set aside - or even modify - the terms of the Abrahamic covenant. All of us are under ONE covenant of grace secured for us, as God's gift, via Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.

Paul explained exactly why that Abrahamic covenant couldn't be set aside. That's because its promise wasn't even to Abraham, it was to Christ himself.

Not sure what point you are making here. Is this a reply to something I wrote?

I may have pressed the wrong reply button.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Al Touthentop,

Actually I'm not sure what you responded to. Much of your post doesn't seem to be a reply to what I wrote. Having trouble connecting the dots here.

Maybe the software is doing something weird. It has your name at the top of the quote included in my reply. I'm replying to whomever wrote that stuff and it's weird that the same handle is replying but saying that what I quoted is misattributed.

 

[JAL]

Time was up for the Old Covenant.

Again, I can't accept any Old-covenant/New-Covenant distinctions.

Soteriology didn't change across the "covenants". There is ONE covenant of grace that hasn't changed. I'll briefly explain how this works.

"My sheep hear my voice." God created us for fellowship. Therefore His primary covenant (Abraham) should be Voice-based. Thus, "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to [us] His seed" (Gal 3:16). Promises? Covenants? Both - they are typically the same thing because a promise from God binds Him covenantally to fulfill it. But all these promises and covenants are ultimately secured by (and thus manifestations of) the ONE Promise/Covenant of grace. Hence Gal 3 uses both the singular and the plural:
(1) Promise/Covenant
(2) Promises/Covenants

Again, it's all Voice-based. Even the 10 commandments were shouted by the divine Voice to all Israel. Thus Israel's Old Covenant was the Abrahamic Covenant in play. As is her New Covenant.

Nothing has changed. Therefore this statement is a confusion:

Time was up for the Old Covenant.

No, because in reality no such distinctions exist. We're all under the same eternal covenant. We are to obey God's voice today just as Israel was supposed to do so yesterday.

 

[JAL]

Paul explained exactly why that Abrahamic covenant couldn't be set aside. That's because its promise wasn't even to Abraham, it was to Christ himself.

The promises were spoken both to Abraham and to his seed Christ and to us his seed as well.

 

[JAL]

Maybe the software is doing something weird. It has your name at the top of the quote included in my reply. I'm replying to whomever wrote that stuff and it's weird that the same handle is replying but saying that what I quoted is misattributed.

I was referring to your first post which didn't strike me as much on-point.

 

[JAL]

Only if he was talking about his second coming. He wasn't. He was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. That's a time passage. God's time passages must be respected. The near demonstrative pronoun there is specific (αὕτη). Had he wanted to indicate a time long in the future he wouldn't have said it that way.

Bible study requires us to submit to the word. He says "until ALL these things have happened." Because some of those things seem to have a meaning we're certain of (Christ's second comng!) and we can't reconcile this because, "I'm certain that hasn't happened yet," then some other possibility has to be available to us which reconciles with God's infallible word.

That's the point. The most natural reading doesn't work - unless you accept my proposal. Yes I know, thinkers such as yourself will continue to "fudge" your way through these verses, including Romans 11, but you can't get a seamless reading out of it, without my proposal. Again, the same "this generation" problem occurs in Mat 23. Here again it's a bump in the road for traditional exegesis. For me, it is perfectly seamless, it it is the kind of language that I would EXPECT Jesus to have used. And I can say that across the board about ALL the verses mentioned on this thread so far. For me, none of them are problem passages.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Again, I can't accept any Old-covenant/New-Covenant distinctions.

It would seem then that you can't accept the writings of the New Covenant authors.

Hebrews 8:7
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second."

 

[JAL]

It would seem then that you can't accept the writings of the New Covenant authors.

Hebrews 8:7
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second."

Not at all. The various covenants in Scripture serve to identify and ramify the constituent aspects of the one Covenant. Israel's Old Covenant emphasized some legal aspects, and the judgments that can befall us if we disobey. But if we tunnel-vision on Israel's Old Covenant, without allowing our vision to encompass her New Covenant, we lose sight of some OTHER aspects of the one Covenant, such as God's commitment to writing His law on our hearts (the ministry of the Spirit). That ministry isn't new. The OT saints had the same indwelling Spirit as we do today.

It's all one Covenant, regardless of how many are the "covenants" in which it manifests itself.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Debates regarding the above verse often overlook the fact that the same issue arises in the preceding chapter (Mat 23) where Jesus indicts "this generation" for killing all the prophets:

"And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation."

Here too, the only perfectly seamless reading involves regarding Israel as an everlasting generation.

Why? Why couldn't it be that the leaders of Israel at that time, would murder apostles and disciples, bringing upon themselves the same wrath brought upon their forefathers when they murdered the prophets sent to them?

We even read about their persecution in the stoning of Stephen. Right there you have the very fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy when he said that they would kill the very prophets he was about to send them.

"This generation" meant exactly what he said.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Not at all. The various covenants in Scripture serve to identify and ramify the constituent aspects of the one Covenant. Israel's Old Covenant emphasized some legal aspects, and the judgments that can befall us if we disobey. But if we tunnel-vision on Israel's Old Covenant, without allowing our vision to encompass her New Covenant, we lose sight of some OTHER aspects of the one Covenant, such as God's commitment to writing His law on our hearts (the ministry of the Spirit). That ministry isn't new. The OT saints had the same indwelling Spirit as we do today.

It's all one Covenant, regardless of how many are the "covenants" in which it manifests itself.

Paul made a distinction that you say you can't accept. Is Paul in error?

 

[JAL]

Why? Why couldn't it be that the leaders of Israel at that time, would murder apostles and disciples, bringing upon themselves the same wrath brought upon their forefathers when they murdered the prophets sent to them?

We even read about their persecution in the stoning of Stephen. Right there you have the very fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy when he said that they would kill the very prophets he was about to send them.

"This generation" meant exactly what he said.

He blamed "this generation" for the blood of Abel. Again, you can't get a seamless reading out of that, without my proposal. Like I said, you can continue fudging your way through all these problem passages. For me, none of them are problem passages.

 

[JAL]

Paul made a distinction that you say you can't accept. Is Paul in error?

The whole point of the superficial distinctions is to identify the constituent elements of the Covenant, as I said.

Yes the constituent parts are distinct from each other. But they comprise the whole. We are not governed by the constituent parts, but by the whole.

You have to penetrate through the apparent distinctions to see the whole. Maybe I can help with that a bit, in an explanatory post.

 

[Al Touthentop]

He blamed "this generation" for the blood of Abel. Again, you can't get a seamless reading out of that, without my proposal. Like I said, you can continue fudging your way through all these problem passages. For me, none of them are problem passages.

You misread the text. He did not blame "this generation" for those murders. He said that they would bring upon themselves the blood of those murders by doing the same to the prophets that he would send.

God does not EVER charge the sin of the fathers to the sons.

Ezekiel 18:19-20
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. "