Retractiones
Preface
to Retractions
In the course of my life and
studies, I have undergone some fairly drastic shifts in my own theological
paradigm. Some of these shifts occurred
slowly and other fairly rapidly. I have
decided to take a point from Saint Augustine of Hippo and put together a list
of beliefs that I wish to retract.
Sadly, at one time or another I have both espoused and taught others to
believe the points listed in these posts.
Please do not take any of critiques
personally. These posts are an exercise
in theological reflections from a more mature (and hopefully correct)
understanding. I know many people who
are far holier than I am who hold to many of the views with which I will
disagree.
Retractiones: Ethnic Israel in Eschatology
If you were raised in baptistic
circles in the 80’s and 90’s, you were probably a dispensationalist by
default. I was. I remember the first time I found out that a
respectable member of my church was not a dispensationalist, I was
shocked. In my mind, there were no
viable eschatological alternatives. Then
I went to Bible College and my dispensationalism began to crumble and crumble
quickly. There were two points that
crumbled rather simultaneously: the rapture and ethnic Israel in prophecy.
This post is the first part in my
attempt to answer a question from my most faithful reader, my mom. She has read every paper of import that I
have ever written. She asked me to
outline why I no longer believe in the rapture without relying upon church
history. This post will begin to provide
that answer. I will however make some
use of Church History in this post and in a later post. Sorry mom, but it is an indispensable line of
argumentation for delineating doctrines and understanding how they came about.
Before I can discuss the doctrine of
the rapture, I think that it would be useful to outline the place of Israel in
prophecy. The doctrine of the rapture
(as classically expounded by people such as John Walvrood) is bound up in the
distinction between Israel and the Church.[1] The Church is understood to be an interim
state in God’s dealings with ethnic Israel.
The rapture removes the Church and God fulfills His covenant promises
with ethnic Israel. The promises in
Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and the prophets are fulfilled in a very literal and physical
manner. Thus issues such as dwelling in
the land become important as fulfillments of covenant promises.
I view this as superfluous, a
misreading of Scripture, and without support from the Fathers. The Apostle Paul addressed the differences
between ethnic Jews and Gentiles at length.
His words are worth noting as they do provide a clear example of the
Apostolic understanding of the distinction between ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles.
Romans chapter 4 begins with Paul
asking this question, “What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our
forefather according to the flesh?” Paul then goes on to argue that Abraham gained nothing in the flesh because
circumcision came after his righteousness by faith (Romans 4:11). The conclusion then is that those who believe
are the children of Abraham without regard to their state of their ethnicity or
foreskins. This conclusion is repeated
in Romans 9:6, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to
Israel.”
The
benefit to being ethnically Jewish, according to Paul is no way explicitly
connected to an eschatological blessing that is distinct from the
Gentiles. Indeed, the point of Romans 11,
in which Paul addressed the Gentiles as a Gentile,[2] is that the Gentiles have no
room for boasting. His metaphor of
branches being removed and grafted is focused on the lack of anyone to boast,
not about the certainty with which ethnic Israel would receive a blessing
distinct from the Church.
Paul even addressed the churches of
Galatia, which were predominately Gentiles, as the Israel of God. This can be seen in Galatians 6:16, “And as
for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the
Israel of God.” The true Israel then has
nothing to do with ethnicity but with faith.
This is the teaching of the Apostle Paul and there is no record or
tradition of the other Apostles disagreeing with him.
The best argument for a separate
future for ethnic Israel from the believing Gentiles is made from the promises
found in the Old Testament. The argument
goes as follows: God promised things to ethnic Israel. God will keep his promises. Therefore there must be a moment in the
future in which God will keep these promises.
This is a fairly compelling argument if one holds to a
grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation. However, the Apostles did not utilize a
grammatical-historical method of exegesis.[3] Neither did the Apostles speak about how God would
fulfill these promises in a literalistic manner to ethnic Israel while
excluding the Gentiles.
As with the Apostles, the Fathers of
the Church did not present a view that the ethnic people of Israel would
receive a blessing apart from the Church.
This can be seen as early as the Epistle of Barnabas. In 1-17, Barnabas argues that the Old
Testament prefigures the person and work of Christ along with demonstrating
that the Church is the people of God because the younger receives the blessing
over against the older (in saying this, Barnabas reads the blessing of Jacob
over Esau as a type referring to the Church being blessed over Israel).[4] These and other points are repeated
throughout the Fathers[5] with moments that could be
considered anti-Semitic.[6] The point however is that the ancient and
consistent view of the Church has been to understand the promises made to
Israel to be fulfilled in the Church which is the true Israel.
My conclusion, following Paul and
the Fathers, is that the Church is the true Israel. The promises of the Old Covenant are fulfilled
and will be fulfilled in the Church.
Therefore, there is no need to posit a future in which ethnic Israel
receives quantitatively distinct blessings by virtue of being ethnically
Jewish. This conclusion does not lead me
to look for any future state of eschatological blessing for ethnic Israel apart
from Christ and his Church.
[1] I am limiting myself to the more
classical presentations of dispensational theology. I am doing this because there is quite a
spectrum of views that could fall into the dispensational category and
discerning the nuances to the various tweaks by sundry authors is far more than
I can adequately accomplish in a blog post.
[2] Romans 11:13, “Now I am speaking
to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my
ministry.”
[3] This will be the
topic of an upcoming blog post.
[4] For the full text
in English, click
here.
[5] See Tertullian, Apology, 21, and Justin Martyr, Dialogue
with Trypho a Jew for a couple early examples.
[6] The issue of anti-Semitism ought
to be viewed in light of the general name calling and character assassination
that was a cultural part of argumentation of the late Roman Empire. When the anti-Jewish comments are viewed in
parallel with other such comments made against fellow Christians, they are far
less problematic. Tertullian wrote of
Hermogenes that “he mistakes pointless verbiage for eloquence and believes that
it is the duty for a man of good conscience to speak ill of all men.” Jerome’s writing are likewise replete with
similar statements (Jerome is the grumpy uncle of the Church Fathers). With this in mind,
here is a link to Chrysostom’s sermon Against
the Jews.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment