This morning I heard a radio program on the last passage of the book of Galatians. As some of you may know, Galatians 6:16 is a cornerstone verse for Covenant Theology. It is the flour and milk of their bread and butter. Galatians 6:16 states: “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy [be] upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”
From this passage they build a theology known as Replacement Theology. Even though the term “Replacement Theology” has in some Covenant circles taken on a negative context, for all practical purposes the Covenant position believes in Replacement Theology.
This pastor’s argument was two fold:
1. The Israel of God as used in this passage is appositional, meaning, it is another name for the same persons or group of people talked about in the first part of the verse. The Israel of God as seen here would be another name for “those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them…”
2. The peace pronounced to this group “those who will walk by this rule” is the promise of peace found in Psalm 125; therefore, the Church is the recipient of this Psalm, a Psalm written to Israel. And so, the Church must be Israel.
Now let us think about this…
Argument #1 - The Israel of God is appositional
Did you know that Israel is used 65 times in the New Testament? Care to guess how many times “Israel,” as used in the New Testament, is another name for the community of Christian faith, known as the Church?...Allow me to help you out. The answer is zero. There is not one time in the New Testament in which the authors of the gospels, epistles, letters and sermons call the Church “Israel.” Instead, each time “Israel” is used, it is in reference to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, namely, the Jews.
Also, it would be an extremely rare case for the syntax of the verse to include “and upon the Israel of God,” as an appositional phrase. It would be so rare that it would almost be impossible. The two uses of the preposition “upon” would also beg the existence of two distinct groups; mercy and peace is proclaimed upon the community of faith, the Church, and upon the Israel of God. In so doing, Paul is accomplishing two things: 1. He is making a distinction between believing and non believing Israel. Believing Israel is now a part of the Church (Eph 2:11-22), while non-believing Israel are the ethnic Jews, the chosen people of God from the Hebrew Scriptures (Rom 2:28-29; 9:6). 2. Paul’s proclamation of peace upon both the Church and Israel showed that he was not anti-Semitic (9:1-5).
Argument #2 – Psalm 125 written to Israel now transferred to the new Israel.
(This one amazed me.) Let me quote to you Psalm 125.
Those who trust in the LORD are like Mount Zion, which cannot be shaken but endures forever. 2 As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds his people both now and forevermore. 3 The scepter of the wicked will not remain over the land allotted to the righteous, for then the righteous might use their hands to do evil 4 Do good, O LORD, to those who are good, to those who are upright in heart. 5 But those who turn to crooked ways the LORD will banish with the evildoers. Peace be upon Israel.
Do you see how Galatians 6:16 is a direct quotation or an allusion to Psalm 125? Perhaps if I re-quote Galatians 6:16... “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy [be] upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” Still no? Yeah, neither can I, but here is what the pastor said, the words “peace,” “upon,” and “Israel,” exist in both. Three words! Three words!
The pastor (I won’t say who, because I am not mad at the pastor, just the position) went on to say that Psalm 125 was written to Israel, which is absolutely true. Then he said, that the church experiences the peace of God as stated in Galatians 6:16a. Correct again! And because Psalm 125 promises peace and Galatians 6, which is obviously, according to him, a direct quotation from this Psalm, promises peace, the Church must be the recipients of the peace promise of Ps.125 making the Church the replacement of the recipient of the Psalm, i.e. Israel. The Church is Israel. …Uhhh…. Wrong.
Did God promise peace to Israel? Yes. Did God promise peace to the Church? Again, yes! Can God only have one promise at a time? No. Does the church need to be Israel in order to receive a promise of peace? No! God can give a promise of peace to Israel, and give a promise of peace to the Church and the two groups can be distinct and fulfill the Word and the Truth of Scripture.
Why replace Israel with the Church, especially if you are going to admit that God still has a future plan for ethnic Israel as taught in Romans 9-11 and as outwardly held by some major voices in the Covenant world? It goes against a more complete biblical understanding of the plan of God. Any consistent understanding of the New Testament or the whole of Scripture demands a belief in the Church as well as Israel as two distinct groups which come together and share in the plan and purpose of God. One prominent Covenant theologian/pastor, when asked how this future of Israel plays into his theology, in which the Church has replaced Israel, said the Bible teaches a plan for Israel in the future…How that works in my system, I don’t know. It’s confusing (paraphrase mine).
In other words, the system is inconsistent. Replacement Theology is inconsistent, and because Replacement Theology is a major tenant of Covenantalism, Covenant Theology is inconsistent.
Look, this was the first time I’ve ever heard this Psalm 125 argument, but this is exactly the type of argument used all the time for the replacement of Israel. Here is the logic they use:
Premise: Israel is given a promise
Premise: The church is given a similar promise, or is allowed to play a part in the original promise.
Conclusion: Therefore, the church must have replaced Israel
(not exactly a sound argument)
To the replacement theologian, it is inconceivable that God would allow a promise to remain a promise to Israel and there be a promise given to the Church that looks the same or is part of the bigger original promise, without the Church being the real receiver of the original promise.
Let me give you an illustration that might help...
Little Bobby came over Monday wanting a sucker. I told him that I would give him one later in the week after I went to the store. Katie came over Tuesday, after I went to the store. I gave Katie a sucker. Did I give Katie the sucker I promised Bobby? No. I still have a sucker for Bobby. I gave Katie a sucker just like Bobby's sucker, but I still have a sucker waiting for little Bobby when He comes back to see me.
The Covenant/Replacement Theologian would say that I gave the sucker to Katie and therefore there will be no sucker for Bobby. Then the major voices of Covenant Theology would admit, based on Romans 9-11, that when Bobby comes over again later this week, he still will get his sucker. Something isn't working here! How can Bobby have been replaced by Katie as the recipient of the sucker, but still get a sucker later during the week?
Why can’t you guys just be consistent? There is an entity in Scripture called the Church consisting of both Jews and Gentiles. We play a part in God’s plan to bring himself glory. And there is an entity in Scripture called Israel, a remnant of the Jews who will receive the promises made to the Israelites in the Old Testament when God chooses to fulfill his promises (Rom. 9-11).
It sounds like you guys/gals are reading a tradition into the text, rather than taking out of the text, the simple Word and Truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment