The Fourth Week of the Prophets Course discussed the meaning of the concept of the remnant in today’s world. Many, being influenced by the perception of the church in the US see the restoration of the remnant as being fulfilled in the creation of the nation of Israel after World War II. This understanding is problematic.
There are two different issues here. 1. Is the Israel in the New Testament the Church or the Jewish nation? 2. Is the restoration of the remnant promised in the prophets, especially Isaiah fulfilled in the Church or the nation of Israel or neither?
All theologians agree that Israel in the New Testament is the Church and not Israel. Paul says in Rom 9:6 ‘not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel’ emphasising that Israel and ethnic Jews are different. John the Baptist in Matthew 3:9 says that being of Jewish descent is not relevant since God could raise up ‘Jews of faith’ from elsewhere. In Luke 12:32 Jesus says that God will give the kingdom to the ‘little flock’ or His disciples. So the new kingdom of which Jesus speaks is the Church and not the nation of the Jews. This is more forcefully put across in the parable of the landowner in Matt 21:33-46. In verse 43 Jesus says very clearly that the kingdom will be taken away from the Jews and given to His followers. Verse 45 states that the Jewish leaders perceived the parable as an attack on them.
Because of their understanding that the Church was New Israel, the Biblical writers used terms used for Israel for the Church. O James writes to the 12 tribes of the dispersion (James 1:1) and Peter writes to the exiles of the dispersion (I Pet 1:1).
From these passages it is clear that the Church saw itself as the New Israel, taking on the role of the Old Israel which had failed God. Hence in the understanding of the Church the old nation of Israel ceased to have any role in the salvation of the world or in God’s plan of redemption.
The Jews in the time of Jesus (and some Christians today) struggled with this message as it seemed to go against the promises in Amos 9:11-15, Joel 3:1-3, Hosea 14, Isaiah 40-66, Jer which speaks of God’s calling back the Jews who have been scattered all over the world and restoring to them the kingdom. They stress God’s undying love for the nation of Israel and how He would not give them up. So the Jews in the time of Jesus (just as the Jews in the time of Isaiah and Jeremiah) refused to believe that God would reject them. So they rejected Jesus and His teaching.
Jeremiah 25:11f and Jeremiah 29:10 date this restoration promised by the prophets as occurring within seventy years, identifying it with the edict of Cyrus. Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 identify Cyrus as the one to restore Israel as the Servant of Yahweh. It is therefore evident that the restoration spoken of by the prophets in those times, especially by Isaiah and Jeremiah was from the exile under the Assyrians and Babylonians, and not the exile under the Romans. Therefore the rejection of the Jews spoken of by Jesus was a second casting away and there is no prophecy of their restoration after this casting away as the Church has now replaced the nation of the Jews.
Then is it wrong to see the restoration of the nation of Israel today as a fulfilment of the promises in the Bible? Recognising the multiple fulfilment of prophecies in the Bible, and the nature of the events I would find it difficult to see it as not a fulfilment of the prophecies in the prophets of the love of God for the nation of Israel. But even if it be a fulfilment of the prophecy of the Old Testament prophets, it is only a secondary fulfilment. Even Paul saw the remnant amongst the Jews joining the Church, rather than the Church joining the nation of Israel.
However many see the restoration of Israel as a preparation for the end-times wars of Revelation and Ezekiel. Here I struggle a bit, as, if Israel has been replaced by the Church, should not the end-time wars be between the Church and the World and not between the nation of Israel and the World. In my mind, Israel today is the church, and nation of Israel is a distraction of little relevance to salvation history. I think I am struggling with the concept of two Israels – the nation and the Church. To me the relevant Israel is the Church.
I am just airing my views and do not think I have the complete answer to this conundrum. I am trying to define the problem for others to get into the act and give their views.
No comments:
Post a Comment