Posted on 12/20/2015 5:14:36 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
Not All of Israel is Israel
by Greg Bahnsen
Introduction
Where does the blame lie for the mess that our culture is in? Are the "bleeding-heart liberals" or the government schools to blame? Not according to the Apostle's Peter and Paul. Why? Because judgment begins with the church, "For the time has come for the judgment to begin from the house of God. And if it first begins from us, what will be the end of those disobeying the Gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17). God will not demand the obedience of the nations until we, the church, are brought into obedience - "...bring[ing] into captivity every thought into the obedience of Christ; and having readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." (2 Cor. 10:5-6).
So what does all this have to do with the subject matter? It is the endeavor of this writer to demonstrate from Scripture that we, the church, have departed from the orthodox view of Biblical Christianity for a view of theology that has broken continuity with history as well as the Word of God. In this article we will examine that view which I believe has made the church impotent in this latter half of the twentieth century - the view known as dispensationalism - and its teaching concerning the church and Israel. It is this author's intention to show from Scripture that the church (ekklesia) is, has and always will be the true Israel of God. And by our misunderstanding of that truth, we have brought the curses of the covenant upon our nation and our children's' children.
A PROPER HERMENEUTIC
Scholarship is a word that brings jeers from most pew-sitters and clergy alike. Even the so-called evangelical or conservative churches seem to passionately despise the very word. It is implied that to be involved with scholarship is to be locked in an "ivory tower" - thereby ignoring your job as a "soul-winner". There are some who even referred to that institution where Christians would seek to further their understanding of the Word of God, seminaries, with the supposedly amusing term "cemeteries", thereby implying that those who go to theological schools have a dead or non-emotional faith. Everything has become touchy-feel good. Scholarship as well as systematics, is viewed as being unprofitable. The great Princeton theologian, Dr. Charles Hodge, solidly rebuked these modern day Gnostics with this rebuttal, "Mysticism (i.e. experiential) in its application to theology has assumed two principal forms, the supernatural and the natural. According to the former, God, or the Spirit of God, holds direct communion with the soul; and by the excitement of its religious feelings gives it intuitions of truth, and enables it to attain a kind, a degree, and an extent of knowledge, unattainable in any other way. [They] assume that God by his immediate intercourse with the soul, reveals through the feeling and by means, or in the way of intuitions, divine truth independently of the outward teaching of His Word; and that it is this inward light, and not the Scriptures, which we are to follow".1
God gave us His Word or Scripture 'for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16-17). And knowing how to properly handle His Word is paramount to our understanding of our responsibility to Him. Because God's Word is our final rule of life and faith, one must know how to interpret it properly. As you read this article, you are employing the laws of hermeneutics, even though you may not be aware of it. Hermeneutics are simply the rules of interpretation. These rules teach us how to understand what is/was being said in the historical as well as the grammatical context.
Most rules of interpretation are similar, but with the advent of dispensationalism a new hermeneutic was introduced. In his popular book on interpretation, dispensational author J. Edwin Hartwill defines this new principle as the "first mention principle". He defines this methodology as "That principle by which God indicates in the first mention of a subject, the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God. The first time a thing is mentioned in Scripture it carries with it a meaning that will be carried all through the Word of God" (Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics, pg. 70). An easy Scriptural demonstration will show the fallacy of this principle. In the fourth chapter of Malachi, verse 6 predicts the return of Elijah before the "great and terrible day of the Lord". If one applies this new hermeneutic to the passage, he would miss this sign of the advent of Christ. A so-called "literal" reading of the passage using this new principle would seem to indicate that Elijah himself would return. This is the mistake the Pharisees made.
One can see how detrimental this hermeneutic can be when one tries to define Israel. When Jesus began His earthly ministry, he interpreted Malachi 4 as being fulfilled in John the Baptist. (Matt 11:14; 16:14; Luke 1:17; 9:8,19; John 1:12). That which stands in contradistinction to the "first mention principle" is what is called "apostolic hermeneutics." Basically stated, who better to interpret the Old Testament than Christ and His Apostles? The answer is obvious. This principle can be explained in the adage, "the New Testament is in the Old Testament contained, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament explained". It is with this understanding, allowing the New Testament to explain and define the Old Testament that we shall use to identify who is and is not Israel.
Who is NOT Israel?
One of the most convincing passages for defining who is NOT Israel comes to us from Paul in Romans 2:28, "For he is not a Jew (Israel) who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that of the flesh…;" Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us that being a Jew has nothing to do with outward appearances or ceremonies.
A.W. Pink comments on this passage, "What could be plainer than that? In the light of such a Scripture, is it not passing strange that there are today those-boasting loudly of their orthodoxy and bitterly condemning all who differ-who insist that the name 'Jew' belongs only to the natural descendants of Jacob..." 2 The great Presbyterian commentator Matthew Poole states, "He is not a Jew; a right or true Jew, who is heir of the promise made to the fathers, that is one outwardly..." 3
In fact, this passage shines light on the statement in the gospel of John, chapter 1 vs. 12-13. One must understand that the title "children of God" was a name given to the saints of old (i.e. Old Testament Israel, Ex. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Is. 1:2-4; 63:8; Jer. 31:9; Hos 11:1). In this passage, John declares, "But as many as received Him, He gave to them the right to become children of God, to those who believe on His name-who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God".
Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown comment that this statement does away with the arrogance of the Jews of Christ's day by informing them that to be a child of God had nothing to do with natural descent, nor of supposed "superior human descent," not of man in any way. To be a true "Jew" or "Israelite" never meant that you were such because of where you were born or to whom you were born, save God Himself. 4
In Romans 9:6, Paul records these revealing words, "...for not all those of Israel are Israel; nor because they are the seed of Abraham (natural descendants) are they all children (of Abraham or God)."
Dr. Charles Hodge in his commentary states, "...the promise was not addressed to the mere natural descendants of Abraham. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel, i.e. all the natural descendants of the patriarch are not the true people of God..., All descendants from the patriarch Jacob called Israel, are not the true people of God; (in the same way) all who are in the visible church (who are members of a local congregation) do not belong to the true invisible church."
(Rest at link)
A useful and timely reminder.
In other words, BS!
I think maybe you should consult a dictionary.
One of the most convincing passages for defining who is NOT Israel comes to us from Paul in Romans 2:28, "For he is not a Jew (Israel) who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that of the flesh"
Quoting scripture? That can get you yelled at around here.
What do you think is BS and what's your rational/proof that it's BS ?
Absolutely NOT TRUE. If your mother is a Jew, you are a Jew. That is JEWISH law, not some pronouncement by some non-Jews. Non-Jews are free to say whatever, it's a free country, but that certainly does not mean it's not total baloney. And in this case, it is certainly baloney.
Flame away, you would-be proselytizers. It will do you as much good as slamming your head into a brick wall. You don't have a leg to stand on in this matter.
Do you have a better exegesis?
R. B. Yerby wrote “The Once and Future Israel” and made the very point Bahnsen made. 62 pages in PDF on the ‘net.
I might add that you should read your Bible rather than have someone explain your Bible to you...
501c3 is what happened, to a large extent.
The author was using Paul’s definition and, yes, Paul was a jew. Quoting Scripture and not a lawbook.
Hermeneutics is complete BS. It’s about theories that are not really theories. They evolve like liberals.
I am well aware of hermeneutics. That is a BS way of saying that I have an evolving theory. Liberals love hermeneutics.
He didn't say "continuing" hermeneutics. He said proper, then went on to give what is basically classic Reformed theology that is much older than the system he was criticizing.
That's an interesting observation. You're probably right.
I don’t think the word “hermeneutics” means what you think it means. Look it up again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.