1Therefore,
what [is the] advantage of the Jew, or what [is the] profit of the
circumcision? 2[There is] much according to every way, because first
they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3For, what if some
disbelieved (were unfaithful), does not their unbelief (unfaithfulness) nullify
the truth (truthfulness, faithfulness) of God?
4May it never be! But, let God be truthful but every man a
liar, just as it is written, “In order that You may be justified in Your
speaking and You will be victorious in what You [are] judging (or being
judged).” 5But if our
unrighteousness displays the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] not
God unrighteous, inflicting the wrath? I speak according to a man. 6May
it never be! Then how will God judge the world? 7But also if the
truth of God abounds in my falsehood into His glory, why then am I yet judged
as a sinner? 8And are we not blasphemed thus and some are saying we
say that we should do the evil in order that the good may come? Their judgment
is just.
In my last post I stated that I have no problem with the
first question in this passage, “What about the Jew?” I said there, “I
personally find that a very intelligent question of anyone who reads and
understands their Bible. Barrels of ink have been spent over the years by
theologians trying to explain the place of the Jew especially in the present
Church Age and then into the future. In fact, I strongly suspect the question
hasn’t been probed enough, but I’ll have to leave that for another post.”
I hadn’t intended to elaborate on the point, but I think I
will, while I’m thinking about it, just for the fun of it. What do I mean, “The
question hasn’t been probed enough”? I think people tend to fall into one of
two errors: There are those who would claim the church has replaced the Jewish
people as God’ chosen people, that they are simply rejected, and that their
Jewishness no longer means anything at all. I personally don’t see how anyone
can read their Bible and hold that position, but people do – good people do –
but that because they allow for words to be simply “spiritual,” not literal. In
other words, they accept the idea you can simply make “Jew” in the NT to mean
“a spiritual person,” a person set apart by God. They do the same thing with
the “thousand years” in Rev 20:4-6, asserting it only means “a long time.” In
that passage, the “thousand years” gets repeated three times in three verses. I
totally understand that words can be used allegorically, but it is a rule of
simple common sense that words mean exactly what they mean unless the speaker is
clearly being allegorical. I don’t see any evidence of that in Rev. 20 and the
fact it is repeataed three times in three verses leaves me personally with no
other defensible choice but to believe He means exactly what He says, that it
will be for a period of one thousand years. Similarly, I cannot accept a Bible
interpretation that says “Jew” doesn’t mean “Jew.” So while very good people
may hold that position, I find it untenable.
The other error, which I think is far more common, and which
my blog today is precisely intended to assault is what I would say is a more practical
denial of Jewish uniqueness. What do I mean? Throughout the evangelical church,
most people would heartily agree with me that the Jewish people are still a
special people in the eyes of God. None of us are surprised that in 1947, the
nation of Israel was reborn. We still believe in God’s promise to Abraham, “I
will bless them that bless you” (Gen. 12:3) and so, we want our government to
be good to the nation of Israel, to support them, to honor them, etc. It caused
us great fear when the Obama administration took adversarial positions against
Israel, and we are very heartened to see the Trump administration do all they
can to support Israel. I sit here in May, 2020, sincerely hoping President
Trump will be re-elected in November, on the one hand as a blessing of God on
him personally, since the Lord said, “I will bless them that bless you,” and on
the other hand as I sincerely believe God’s blessings will fall on America if
we, as a nation, continue to support Israel.
I say all that to acknowledge that we, the Evangelical Church
in America, basically all agree that the Jewish people are still special, that
Abraham’s physical descendants are still God’s chosen people, and that they do continue
to bear a distinction from us Gentiles. That said, however, I think as we study
the Bible and seek to understand it, we fail to maintain that distinction. We
read in Galatians that the church is a place where “there is neither Jew nor
Greek…,” then speak and act as if there really is no difference any more. For
whatever it’s worth, in that passage in Galatians, he also says there is
neither “male nor female.” Does anyone care to hold that there is no longer any
difference between men and women? Obviously (at least for us Christians) a man
is still a man and a woman is still a woman. Obviously that passage is
referring to our standing before God. As Paul is proving in Romans, all are
under sin, and all must be saved by faith. But I’m saying that doesn’t
obliterate the physical (and even mental) differences between men and women. I
would maintain that neither does it obliterate the differences between Jew and
Gentile – even in the current Church Age – and that means we not only need to
acknowledge the (continuing) distinction theoretically, but we must also acknowledge
it practically.
Probably everything I have to say from here on out will be
completely heretical. However, I have been studying the Bible personally for 40
years and would only say, if someone thinks I’m wrong, then I would welcome
your proofs to that end. But, if we would let words mean what they mean, then
we need to let the Bible say what it says, and, in essence, let the chips fall
where they may.
So let us begin. Are we as NT Christians under the New Covenant?
No. Jeremiah prophesied, “‘The time is coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah’”
(31:31). With who? “With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” The “house
of Israel” and “the house of Judah” is not the church. It is not us. The
Jewish people need a new covenant, precisely because they were under the old
covenant. We weren’t under the old and so we don’t need a new. The nation of
Israel by definition is related to God through a covenant, a legal relationship.
They utterly failed in their old legal relationship with God, and so they need
a new one. As the church, we are the Body
of Christ – we are related to Him organically, not legally. We are actually in the Messiah. We enjoy New Covenant blessings
– specifically the gift of the Holy Spirit – precisely because we are in the Messiah
Jesus, because we are organically united with the One who is the Mediator of
the New Covenant.
This, I would suggest, is of monumental importance to us
Christians. I am not related to Jesus legally. I am in Christ. By
blurring this distinction, we rob ourselves of great peace. As Paul will go on
to say in Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus…” and, “Therefore, since
we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ” (5:1). How can I suffer condemnation if I am found “in Christ?”
Again, as Paul will say later, “Who is he who condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more
than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also
interceding for us” (8:34). I can enjoy great peace in my relationship with God
precisely because I am not bound to Him legally. My relationship with Him is
not through a covenant. I am in Christ.
Let the heresies continue. I think we err greatly not
recognizing, even in the New Testament, when the Lord is speaking to Jews. In
the Gospels, Jesus is a Jew speaking to Jews. When the Syro-Phoenician woman
came to ask Jesus to heal her daughter, He said, “I was sent only to the lost
sheep of Israel.” It was only her response, “But don’t even the dogs eat the crumbs
that fall from the children’s table?” which won her the approbation of Jesus. In
John 12:21-23, the Greeks told Philip, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus,” and
it is notable that Jesus utterly ignored them. The mere statement makes our
hair stand on end. Yet, read the text. It says what it says. I will say it
again, in the Gospels, Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews. My point is that we
totally ignore that reality and try to make every word apply directly to ourselves.
I am suggesting that is a poor hermeneutic. We are to ask, “Who is speaking and
who is being spoken to?” Why do we drop that rule of interpretation when we
read the Gospels?
Two other places in particular we need to acknowledge this
distinction are in the book of James and the book of Hebrews. What does James say? He addresses
his letter to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.” Once again, we
have a Jew specifically writing to Jews. And there is “the epistle to the
Hebrews.” Do we not risk error and confusion if we ignore the fact that these
books are written to Jews? I think that is exactly what we do and that is
exactly what I’m calling a “practical” denial of our distinctions. We say there
is a distinction, then read our Bible as if there is not. The book of Hebrews
in particular contains some passages that stand our Christian hair on end. What
if we acknowledged it is written specifically to Jews and needs to be understood
on that basis? Theirs is a legal relationship with God. We shouldn’t be
surprised if, when God is speaking directly to them, He doesn’t say some things
that we find frighteningly legal!
I suspect there are places even in the book of Acts where we
err blurring our distinction. Again, we need to realize that, yes, the book of
Acts is a book of the early church, but we should not fail to recognize that
still much of what is said and much of what happens involves distinctly Jewish Christians. The Gentile
Christians only enter the picture in chapter 10 and then, throughout the rest
of the book, there is constantly maintained a clear distinction between Jewish
and Gentile Christians. Yes, in the Church and in this Age, we are all “one in
Christ,” but a man is still a man, a woman is still a woman, a Jew is still a
Jew, and a Gentile is still a Gentile.
The last place where I want to point out the continuing distinction
is in the book of Revelation. We have the book clearly open with John writing
of and to the Church. Chapters two and three are specifically written to the “Seven
Churches.” But beginning in Chapter 4, to me there is no question that from
then on, we are reading a Jewish book. Even ponder the passage in 14:6,7: “And
I saw another angel flying in midair, having the eternal gospel to preach to
those who live on the earth, …; and he said with a loud voice, ‘Fear God, and
give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made
the heaven and the earth…’” Here’s my point: if you and I heard an angel
proclaiming the eternal Gospel from the sky, what would we expect to hear?
Would it not be, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved!” Instead,
In Rev. 14:6, it is “Fear God and give Him glory…” That “gospel” should strike
us as odd…unless we are realizing we are not in the Church Age in Rev. 14. We
are in the “Day of Jacob’s trouble,”
the “Seventieth Week of Daniel.” Beginning in Revelation 4, the Church Age as
we know it is over. The Lord returns to complete His promises specifically to
the Jewish people. He calls His witnesses out of “the Twelve Tribes” and I
would suggest, once again, by blurring the distinction between Jew and Gentile,
we subject ourselves to an element of confusion that is entirely unnecessary.
Where does all this lead?
Beats me.
In a lot of cases, quite frankly, I haven’t decided what to
do with it all. I don’t really know.
I just think we need to be consistent. We need to let the
Bible say what it says and neither force it into our preferential mold nor flee
from its literal intent. It says what it says. Let us study it, understand it,
and seek to live it simply as that. Our God didn’t write to confuse us. He said
we would know the truth and the truth would make us free. I want to enjoy His
freedom as much as I possibly can, so, God help me, I want to let Him speak,
let Him say what He says, then let me understand Him and the life He wants me
to live based on what He said.
I don’t even need to understand it today.
As Juba told Maximus, “You will…but not yet.”
No comments:
Post a Comment