Ye Chosen Seed of Israel's Race, Part 4: What About the Land?

This is part 4 of a continuing series. To read the previous installents, click here, here, and here.

The status of the Jewish people today is one of the most heated debates in contemporary theology. I am obviously not going to resolve all the disagreements just by blogging about it. Nevertheless, it is also one of the most important issues in biblical interpretation. In previous posts, I have done my best to show that the New Testament understands Jesus and the Church as the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope of Israel. Today, I will be dealing with the issue of the land of promise. Like the other points made in prior posts, this is a big topic and deserves a fuller treatment than I can give it here. My next post will tackle whether the Jewish people still have a place in the plan of God.

The land of promise is something that practically dominates the Old Testament. This is especially seen in the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

(Genesis 15:18-20 NIV)

Now there was a famine in the land - besides the earlier famine of Abraham's time - and Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines in Gerar. The LORD appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your Father Abraham. 

(Genesis 26:1-3)

Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. When he reached a certain place he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. 

(Genesis 28:10-13)

The land of promise is reiterated in the book of Psalms:

Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name;

make known among the nations what he has done.

Sing to him, sing praise to him;

tell of all his wonderful acts.

Glory in his holy name;

let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice.

Look to the LORD and his strength;

seek his face always.

Remember the wonders he has done,

his miracles, and the judgments he pronounced,

O descendants of Abraham his servant,

O sons of Jacob, his chosen ones.

He is the LORD our God;

his judgments are in all the earth.

He remembers his covenant forever,

the word he commanded, for a thousand generations,

the covenant he made with Abraham, 

the oath he swore to Isaac.

He confirmed it to Jacob as a decree,

to Israel as an everlasting covenant;

"To you I will give the land of Canaan 

as the portion you will inherit."

(Psalm 105:1-11)

Likewise, the promise of restoration to the land of Israel after the exile is a staple of the Prophets:

You are saying about this city, "By the sword, famine, and plague it will be handed over to the king of Babylon; but this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. They will be my people, and I will be their God... I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul.'"

(Jeremiah 32:36-38;41)

Therefore say; "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: 'I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again.'"

(Ezekiel 11:17)

Hopefully this small sample of passages illustrates the point that God had made an unbreakable promise that to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob he would forever give the land of Canaan. 

But how should New Covenant believers understand this? Should we just leave it as is and assume that only the ethnic people of Israel - the Jewish nation - will eventually repossess that land at some point in the future? Does the New Testament offer up any words on the issue of the land? As a matter of fact it does. 

Firstly, as I have demonstrated, then the land of promise is now the possession of the remnant of Israel and the gentiles who believe in Jesus, who together in perfect union form the Church, the Israel of God (Galatians 6:14-16). 

Secondly, as a hermeneutical principle, we must interpret the Old Testament via the New Testament. Since Messiah has come and reconstituted the people of God as the Church, it is that newer revelation that must have interpretive priority. As we come to the book of Hebrews, the anonymous writer highlights how Old Covenant types and shadows find their fulfillment in Jesus. For example, commenting on the Sabbath, the writer makes a statement that shows us that the Old Testament land of promise was a shadow of something greater:

Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:

"Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts".

For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.

(Hebrews 4:7-8)

While drawing attention to Psalm 95 and its promise of a Sabbath rest for God's people, passing reference is made to Joshua and his conquest of the promised land in the book that bears his name. But the interesting thing to note there is that Joshua conquered the promised land and that Scripture records the fulfillment of the promise:

So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors, and they took possession of it and settled there. The Lord gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their ancestors. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.

(Joshua 21:43-45)

So on the one hand, the land promise was fulfilled. But on the other hand, because of the Exile, Israel was expelled from the land and thus a regathering must take place. Why is this? Well, one answer is that because despite Israel's taking possession, they still had evil, uncircumcised hearts (Deuteronomy 9:6;13). They were sinners. They could not live with a holy God. They needed to be renewed in their hearts and have a new spirit placed in them (Ezekiel 36:25-27). This is why another day is spoken of, called by the psalmist, "today". Today is the day for sinners to receive the new heart and the new spirit that God had promised. Then they can enter into the rest that Joshua - great as he was - could never really give. 

But more than this, the writer of Hebrews highlights Abraham and his faith and what he (along with Isaac and Jacob) knew about the land.

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God...

...All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

(Hebrews 11:8-10; 13-16)

Based on the above Scripture, it is clear that somehow, Abraham understood that the physical, earthly land he was standing on when God made that promise was actually a type and shadow of the real promise - eternal life in the New Heavens and New Earth! Baptist theologian John Reisinger writes this: "Abraham obviously realized, while his feet were actually standing in the land of promise itself, that the land was not the full or real promise, but only a pledge of something greater. Abraham's ultimate hope was "heavenly" (v 16) and not "earthly" (v 13). He was still looking for a heavenly city even while dwelling in the physical land of promise. It is clear to anyone without a total theological bias that Abraham's hope was not in the earthly city of Palestine but in the heavenly city itself."

(Reisinger, J. G. (1998). Abraham's Four Seeds: A Biblical Examination of the Presuppositions of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism (p. 93). Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media.)

With that established, we must reject the Dispensational doctrine that the ethnic people of Israel must inherit the physical, earthly land in distinction from the Church whose inheritance is in heaven. As we have seen, the earthly land was just a picture of the true land, which is heavenly. So we should not look to Revelation 20 and the Millennium for the fulfillment of the land promise (as those of the Dispensational persuasion would have us believe). Rather, we should look to Revelation 21 and 22! As we read of the wonderful eternal state that awaits believers of all times, we find there the fulfillment of the land which God swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 

Ye Chosen Seed of Israel's Race, Part 3: In Defense of Replacement Theology

This is part 3 of a continuing series. To read part 1, click here. For part 2, click here.

If you have followed this series so far, I have labored to show that the New Testament underscores how Jesus the Messiah fulfills and recapitulates in himself the history and identity of Israel. I have also sought to, as carefully as I can, define terms and represent all sides fairly, despite the inadequacies of many popular labels. In this post, I will attempt to make a brief, positive case for "Replacement" Theology. It is a big job to be sure in a blog post, but I am going to give it my best shot.

As I have stated before, this is a very emotionally-laden and charged topic. I am extremely aware of the strong passions that this debate can arouse. My goal is to enlighten and challenge even as I embark on a very difficult task.

My goal here is not to be complicated. To be honest, my case is fairly simple. I will show that, flowing from the truth that Jesus himself is the true Israel, he reconstituted the people of God through his Apostles. In a related vein, I also hope to show that the New Testament deliberately extends to the gentiles the covenant blessings promised to Israel. Lastly, I will briefly consider Galatians 6:16 and whether the "Israel of God" rightly refers to the Church as a whole or not.

As I indicated in part 1 of this series (which you can read by clicking above), Jesus Christ himself is the true Israel. He succeeds in fulfilling the identity and mission of Israel in his life and person where the people of old had failed. In his earthly life, he originated in the Holy Land, went to Egypt, was called out of Egypt, then went through the waters and the desert on His way to the Mountain where the Law was expounded.

But there is another sense in which Jesus shows himself to be the anti-type to Israel; that is in choosing the Apostles. In the Old Testament, the Patriarch Jacob had his name changed to Israel:

That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

(Genesis 32:22-28 NIV)

Israel then went on to have twelve sons (Ephraim and Manasseh were the sons of Joseph which Jacob/Israel adopted; Genesis 48:12-16). These twelve sons went on to become the nucleus of the earthly nation of Israel. So here we see the pattern: Israel has an offspring of twelve men who then proceed to father a nation bearing the name Israel. We find this pattern repeated with Jesus, Israel par excellence. Out of all of his disciples, Jesus chose twelve men whom he designated as "Apostles":

Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

(Mark 3:13-19 NIV)

The choosing of exactly twelve men is not a coincidence (it also explains why Judas Iscariot had to be replaced so as to bring the number of Apostles back from eleven to twelve; Acts 1:12-26). In doing so, Jesus is continuing to recapitulate the history of Israel. He has an "offspring", so to speak, of twelve men who then go on to form the nucleus of a completely renewed and reconstituted Israel, known as the Church (Matthew 16:18). 

But this reconstitution of Israel goes further. So far, we might be led to believe that only Jews partake in these blessings. After all, Jesus did tell his Twelve Apostles, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel..." (Matthew 10:5b-6 NIV). Also, Christianity began as a sect within Judaism. Jesus, the Twelve, and all of the first believers were Jews. Even in including the Samaritans, there was still a common root from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The real surprise of the New Testament was the full inclusion of the gentiles as full partakers of the covenant blessings, without them first converting to Judaism and undergoing circumcision. This was what blew the minds of the early Church. 

But what was so special and surprising about including the gentiles? The Old Testament clearly describes how the coming of the Messiah would bless the gentiles, who would stream to Jerusalem to learn from the God of Israel (Isaiah 2:1-5; 42:4-6; 49:6). So the idea that gentiles would benefit from the coming of the Messiah was not what so surprised the early Church. What so shocked them was the equal footing that the gentiles would now enjoy along with the restored people of Israel! The gentiles would now become a part of Israel no less than Jews. This is seen most clearly in Ephesians 2:11-3:6:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—  remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—

 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

I have to spend some time on this passage, both because of how important it is to my case and because of how it has been abused by those of the Dispensational persuasion. It is ironic that this has become the "go-to" passage by Dispensationalists as if it proves their contention that the Church is somehow this new entity completely distinct from Israel. In reality, this is one of the most damning to their position. The Dispensational perspective basically says that this passage describes a new body of Jews and gentiles that was previously unknown in earlier times, but now revealed to Paul. 

Lewis Sperry Chafer had this to say about the Church and the "mystery": "The word church is not found in the Old Testament because of the fact that the Church did not then exist, and being a mystery or sacred secret of the New Testament (Ephesians 3:3-6), it is not even a subject of Old Testament prophecy."

(Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Major Bible Themes", chapter 35)

This is a half-truth, which is worse than a lie. The true part is that Paul (along with the other Apostles and Prophets; Ephesians 3:5) had received new revelation that was unknown prior to that time. But Dispensationalism assumes that the subject of the mystery is the existence of the Church. But in actuality, the subject of the mystery is the gentiles! It is not the existence of the Church, it is the constituency of the Church! You see, something has shifted in the status of the gentiles in their relationship to the Jews. We know all about God's plans for the Jews from the many Old Testament prophecies concerning them. But whereas before gentiles were completely separated from Israel (see 2:11-12), now because of the Gospel, gentiles are fellow sharers with Israel! Gentiles are now part of the same body as Israel! There is no more distinction - ever again.  And what is it that Israel partakes of that the gentiles now equally share in? In short, the gentiles are now equal sharers WITH Israel of all the wonderful promises that God had made TO Israel! Everything that is promised to Israel - salvation, forgiveness, land, kingdom, et al. - is now the equal possession of gentile Christians. 

With this in mind, it becomes much easier to understand how Paul, in Galatians 6:16, can refer to all believers - Jews and gentiles - as the "Israel of God". This passage has been a source of controversy recently. Does it really refer to the Church? If so, then Dispensationalism (and its derivative theologies) is disproved and shown to be a house of cards. But if it doesn't refer to the Church, then RT is seriously undermined.

While a full exegesis is not possible given space, I will simply point out Paul's entire line of argumentation in his letter to the Galatians (for a more comprehensive defense of my reading of Galatians 6:16, see this article). In the course of defending the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone, Paul brings over many of the wonderful titles and privileges of Israel of old and applies them equally to the gentiles. He can refer to gentile believers as "Sons of Abraham" (3:7), "heirs according to the promise [made to Abraham]" (3:29), "sons of the free woman [Sarah]" (4:23), "children of promise, like Isaac" (4:28) and citizens of the Heavenly "Jerusalem" (4:26). So how can any believer - Jew or gentile - be a son of Abraham, an heir of Abraham's covenant, likened to Isaac in his birthright, and a citizen of Jerusalem, and not be a part of "Israel"? I don't mean to be rude, but it truly boggles the mind.

Messianic Jewish author Michael L. Brown attempts to get around the force of all these titles by pointing out that the Church is never referred to as "Jacob" in the New Testament. He writes: "But where in the New Testament is the Church ever called Jacob? Yet Jacob was used to refer to the people of Israel in the Old Testament more than 140 times! Would anyone ever think of calling the Church Jacob? NO! That's because the Church is no more the New Israel than it is the New Jacob. For that matter, the Church is not the New Yeshurun either. (Yeshurun was used four times in the Old Testament as a special title for Israel - not the Church as a whole.)"

(Michael L. Brown, Our Hands Are Stained With Blood: The Tragic Story of the "Church" and the Jewish People; page 214, note 3)

In response, I should point out that the New Testament is not pedantic. In other words, it is not as if literally every single name must without exception be explicitly repeated. That would quickly become redundant. The titles used in Galatians above, along with "the circumcision" in Philippians 3:3, the "Twelve Tribes" in James 1:1 (compare with 5:14, in which sick believers call for the elders of the Church), the "dispersion" in 1 Peter 1:1 (Peter's readers are called Christians in 4:16) should be sufficient to prove the point that all believers - Jews and gentiles - are rightly called "Israel". 

These points are really just scratching the surface. This is a massive subject, and one that my small contributions are not going to solve overnight. Nevertheless, it is a topic that I feel very strongly and passionately about. With Dispensationalism and its cousins still maintaining a strong presence is many different contexts, I feel that now is the time to address this issue. 

In my next installment, I will tackle the issue of the Land of Promise that God has sworn to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and how it will be fulfilled. After that, in the following post, I will also address the issue of the ethnic Jewish people. Has God forever cast them off, or do they still hold a vital place in God's plans? 

Are You a "Professional Statesman"?

It probably wouldn't take an astute Christian very long to discover that my theology is pretty comprehensive. I don't mean of course where I stand on those first-order truths of central importance; like the Trinity, Justification by Faith, or the Inerrancy of the Scriptures. On those things I am solidly in line with historic Evangelicalism. I am referring primarily to what are usually considered second-order doctrinal questions. These are those biblical and theological issues on which genuine Christians can and do disagree while still reckoning each other as brethren in the Lord. Examples would include debates over Calvinism/Arminianism or whether certain Gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased or not. Clearly, I have strong beliefs on these and other issues. I consider that all of the Bible is worth reading, pondering, articulating, and defending.

More than being comprehensive, my theology is also very eclectic. In other words, it seems that I have one foot in the door of many differing theological perspectives, but I do not neatly fit into any one denominational/theological tradition. Returning to the examples of the last paragraph, I share some things in common with Reformed Theology, like a belief in TULIP/Calvinism. But I differ with Reformed Theology on key points. Likewise is the Charismatic Movement. Like that tradition, I affirm that all spiritual gifts continue to the present day. I deny any theology that says certain gifts like prophecy, tongues, healing, et al. have ceased. But I part ways with the vast majority of the Charismatic Movement by holding to Calvinism and by my denial that women can be ordained as pastors (among other doctrinal issues).

The problem arises of course when my propensity to hold to and state these beliefs runs headlong into the (post)modern tendency to downplay the importance of these doctrinal questions. Almost always this is done in the interest of Christian unity. If doctrinal disagreements divide (and they do divide), and if Christ prayed for unity (and He did - John 17), then maybe all these secondary doctrinal debates are really just a waste of time and we should re-channel that energy into evangelism or other worthy spiritual pursuits.

Another side to this concern is the very laudable desire to remain humble. Humility is at the center of what it means to be a Christian. If we even want to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, we must begin by recognizing our need; that is, we must be humble before God (Matthew 5:3). We are also told in Scripture that, God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). Humility is a big deal, but in our present cultural milieu, it is believed that the height of arrogance is in having strong theological convictions that would necessarily cause divisions between individuals. Similarly, humility is said to be essentially the absence of conviction and the possession of a nebulous uncertainty.

I disagree. Arrogance does not consist in having beliefs and convictions and by implication asserting that others are wrong in their beliefs and convictions. Nor is real humility found in having more questions than answers. That kind of muddled thinking might gain one cachet in the postmodern Western world, but it shouldn't have any place in the Church.

But there is one other issue related to all of this that I wanted to address in this post. This tendency seems to appear most often on the internet - particularly Facebook and Twitter - but it can be found even in the flesh-and-blood real world we live in. There always seems to be that one person who shows up in the middle of a theological exchange, discussion or debate who chimes in - often without invitation - and expresses the sentiments that I described above. At that point, all other parties involved will generally trip over themselves in verbal agreement while feeling a barely concealed guilt that they ever engaged in the debate in the first place. Such individuals always come out smelling like a rose because they appeared to be most concerned with the unity of the church and with "humility".

But are they really all that humble? True, I cannot probe into the depths of a person's motivations. Human motivation is a complicated subject. But if I am really honest, nine times out of ten, I heavily suspect that the peddlers of "unity" and "humility" are actually engaging in a sort of ecclesiastical power play whereby they are admired and others are shamed. And all of this is done in Jesus' name of course. I dare say that it seems more than just a little pharisaical.

All this reminds me of a quotation that I found from Presbyterian author Carl Trueman. Over the years, I have come to appreciate many of Trueman's cultural and theological insights. In one particularly perceptive piece, Trueman takes direct aim at those who would use false guilt to squelch theological discussion:

"This leads to one other concern about future leadership. It is what I call the emergence of the professional statesman. The professional statesman is the person who thinks and acts as if they can rise above the fray and speak to issues in a way that transcends the typical struggles involved in any leadership situation. I have witnessed this so often over the last few years, both in observing the wider political scene and in the church which seems to me to be increasingly marked by such men: they are those who try to defuse theological conflict by playing the moral equivalence card whereby they argue that the struggle is really petty and personal, a moral conflict between lesser men above which they and they alone can stand and see the way forward. My suspicion is that too often this simply reflects the problematic patterns in wider society: a need to be liked; a need to avoid making divisive decisions; and a desire to have the perks of leadership with none of the responsibilities and pain involved.

The problem is that statesmen are made, not born. They earn the right to be statesmen by fighting the battles and leading from the front. Love him or hate him, only Nixon could go to China, because only Nixon had the track record of toughmindedness with regard to Communism that meant he could make the trip.  Only Mandela could dismantle apartheid and promote reconciliation in South Africa because only he had taken the stand and paid the price which gave him the moral authority necessary.  Too often I suspect that aspiring statesmen in the church are driven more by a need to be liked and to avoid conflict than by a real desire to provide strong leadership; but being a statesman is not a career path; it is something that is earned over many years of making hard decisions, taking unpopular stands, and proving one's mettle under fire. Those who simply arrive on the scene as ready-made statesmen, so to speak, or who have statesman status thrust upon them by others before they have ever had to take a tough position on anything - well, such leaders want to have their cake and eat it: they want influence and respect, but they do not particularly want to earn it." 

If Trueman is right; and I have a strong feeling that he is, then it is likely that many of the calls in the Church for "theological humility" may just be little more than gamesmanship and a pandering to the prevailing spirit of the times. That said though - and despite the legitimacy of debate - it is still necessary that we recognize the genuineness of faith of those who disagree with us over important, yet still secondary issues.

Ye Chosen Seed of Israel's Race, Part 2: "Replacement" Theology? Defining Terms

This is part 2 of a continuing blog series. To read part 1, click here.



There are few theological topics of dispute in recent history that can draw out more acrimony than what I am about to begin writing about. Indeed, it is such that some pretty nasty denunciations can be thrown at those who espouse the theological position that I hold to. I am speaking of course of what is usually referred to as "Replacement" Theology. If you ask many Christians today, "Replacement" Theology is that hateful position that says that God has totally rejected the Jewish people and "replaced" them with the Church - a largely gentile body. According to most today, this doctrine is responsible for most, if not all, of the anti-semitism present in church history and today. Perhaps only Calvinism is equal in the amount of vitriol "Replacement" Theology garners in much of the Evangelical and (especially) Charismatic worlds today.

One might notice that I put the word "replacement" in quotes and put a question mark at the end of the title of this post. This is because defining my terms is going to be tough. To be sure, calling my position "Replacement Theology" is not likely going to win my position much sympathy. After all, if I am going to argue (and I will argue) that God has not in fact rejected the Jewish people and that the Church is more aptly considered a "fulfillment" or a "reconstitution" of Israel, why keep the loaded and pejoratively packed label "Replacement Theology"?

It is a good question to be sure. In all honesty, like just about everyone who espouses my position, I don't much care for the label "Replacement Theology". Others in my theological camp have attempted to give it a more sympathetic moniker. Two of the most prominent are "Fulfillment Theology" and "Supersessionism". By Fulfillment Theology, we mean that the Church "fulfills" the covenants and promises that God had made with Israel of old. The term "Supersessionism" is related to the verb "to supersede", and emphasizes that the Church now supersedes the nation of Israel as God's people just as the New Covenant "supersedes" the Old Covenant.

Both of the above terms are fine with me and much to be preferred over the more popular-level label. But the problem is that both Fulfillment Theology and Supersessionism are much more academic-level and the average person sitting in church every Sunday morning is unlikely to understand what these terms mean. I could try to give it a new name - come up with something on my own - like "Union Theology" or something along those lines to describe my belief that the Church is the "union" of the remnant of Israel and believers among the gentile nations . The problem there of course is related to the problem with Fulfillment Theology; no one is going to know what it means without spending a great deal of time on definitions, clarifications and nuances.

Lastly on this point, there is a real sense in which the Church does in fact "replace" Israel. While I do believe that the Church is more accurately the "fulfillment" and "reconstituting" of Israel, and while I will argue that the Church is the union of Israel and the gentiles into a new body, there is a very real sense in which it is true that the Church does "replace" Israel, just as the High Priesthood of Jesus replaces that of Aaron.

Unfortunately, despite its baggage, it appears that I am stuck with "Replacement Theology". Hereafter, in this and in all subsequent posts in this series, I will abbreviate Replacement Theology as RT, though I may occasionally use Fulfillment Theology and/or Supersessionism interchangeably.

In addition to my own position, the other problem I face is that the opposite position to my own is also difficult to define. The most common name given to the contrary position of RT is "Dispensationalism". Dispensationalism is an entire theological system of interpreting all of the Bible. I won't spend too much time delving into the origins of Dispensationalism. Others have gone into far more depth on its origins. Most trace it to Great Britain and the Plymouth Brethren movement of the early 19th century, led by a man named John Nelson Darby. From there, it began to spread in popularity among American Fundamentalists and Evangelicals partially through C.I. Scofield's study Bible. Theological educational institutions like Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary have been bastions of Dispensationalism throughout their respective histories. It has also been the default position in most Pentecostal denominations (such as the Assemblies of God) and in the Jesus People movement (Calvary Chapel).

Central to Dispensationalism is the distinction that is made between Israel and the Church. Lewis Sperry Chafer writes that: "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly
objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with
heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity...."

(quoted by Charles C. Ryrie in Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded, page 33)

But even here, it is not so simple. Today there are broad, popular-level theological perspectives that are similar in most respects to Dispensationalism, yet will sometimes borrow heavily from non-dispensational perspectives, while also emphasizing political and/or cultural concerns. For example, the Messianic Jewish movement and Christian Zionism distinguish between Israel and the Church, but typically do not hold to the more nuanced positions of Classical Dispensationalism. In fact, my experience has been that there are those who will hold to an Israel/Church distinction who will go out of their way to distance themselves from Dispensationalism. The upshot to that oftentimes is the use of verbal sleight of hand to parry critiques of their particular perspective, simply by asserting their independence of Dispensational theology and their agreement with many criticisms of the same.

Still, for all the differences, the common denominator is the distinction that is made between people of God A (Israel) and people of God B (the Church). To illustrate, the statement of faith for Friends of Israel states: "We believe Israel is distinct from the church and central to God’s plan, past, present, and future. The unfulfilled prophecies given to Israel in the Old Testament will find their literal fulfillment in Israel at a future time"

Similarly, Jews for Jesus, a Messianic Jewish organization (and an otherwise outstanding ministry), writes in their faith statement that: "We believe that Israel exists as a covenant people through whom God continues to accomplish His purposes and that the Church is an elect people in accordance with the New Covenant, comprising both Jews and Gentiles who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer."

Nevertheless, despite the important differences noted above, it would be tedious and redundant to consistently have to differentiate between the various labels I just described. So once again, despite the baggage and inadequacies of the name, I am going to simply lump all those who espouse the Israel/Church dichotomy as adherents to "Dispensationalism", unless a sufficient reason exists to differentiate.

Lastly, before I finish, I do want to reiterate that the vast majority of my theological opponents on this issue are truly Christians. They do love the Lord and his people. Many of them are otherwise sound on a number of other important theological and moral issues. I am happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them where the Gospel is concerned. So please, despite my strong disagreement with Dispensationalism (broadly considered), do not read into it any nastiness or eagerness to pronounce anathema.

Amen

I Am Just Not That Big a Fan of Halloween

I have a confession to make. I am just not that big a fan of Halloween. I just don't much care for it. I don't completely reject everything about it. I know of many fine Christians who for reasons of conscience, believe that Halloween in any form is evil. I respect that conviction (see Romans 14). To be honest, I am actually sympathetic to it. But I don't necessarily think total abstinence is the only option for Christians. In my case, my problems with Halloween are two-fold. One is the glorification of death, horror, and evil in the surrounding Western culture. The other problem is how childish the whole thing is.

As to the first, it should go without saying that glorifying death, horror, and evil is repugnant to me and to other Christians. Death is not a good thing. I hate death! I work in Emergency Medical Services. I have seen my share of death. In fact, I once witnessed an autopsy being performed as part of the orientation process at one of my prior ambulance jobs. Death is evil. Death is not natural. Death is something that only exists as part of the curse of sin brought about by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Why in the world would I want to glorify that!?

Similarly, why would I want to act as if horror and evil was something to be used for entertainment? Why would I find joy in viewing disturbing images and sounds? I for one hate the horror genre of movies. Now I don't mind suspense and thrillers and things like that. Some mild forms of that I have been known to view with enjoyment (think anthology series like The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits). But I am talking about horror/slasher movies; film franchises like Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, or more modern series like Saw or The Nun. In my opinion, those things are energized by Satan.

The other thing about Halloween that bothers me is how childish the whole thing is. Let me explain. Personally, I am of the mind that what can be salvaged about Halloween (which is very little) should be for the kids. My own kids dressed in silly, cartoonish costumes and went and got candy from the neighbors. It was cute. It was fun. It wasn't scary at all. And I think that is just the way it should stay. Hearing about teenagers going trick-or-treating in my view speaks to the massive childishness in Western culture today. And I scarcely need to go into how excited adults (and I use that term loosely) seem to get about going to horror attractions and getting drunk while in costume.

Where I live, trick-or-treating is done on the Friday just before October 31, so we just had it. I did enjoy seeing the joy on my kids' faces when they got to dig in to some free candy (of course, I consider myself entitled to a small candy tax as Dad). I also think they looked cute in their costumes (my son was Spiderman while my daughter was dressed up as a black cat). The bottom line is that other than a little bit of kitsch (cartoonish ghosts, Frankenstein, Wolfman, etc...), I only tolerate Halloween for the sake of my kids.

In my mind, Halloween is something to just get through. Personally, I enjoy the fall season; especially now that I live in the Northeast where we actually have changes of seasons. Fall foliage, pumpkin spice (insert everyday product here), and cool days and nights. But to me, one of the nicest things about fall is that we are getting closer to Thanksgiving and Christmas, especially Christmas. Anyone who knows me knows how positively Clark Griswold I get over Christmastime. I am a true Christmas junkie! I am looking forward to getting on with Thanksgiving and Christmas once Halloween is over. Blessings.

Ye Chosen Seed of Israel's Race, Part 1: Jesus as the New Israel

In my last post, I wrote about how Jesus Christ fulfills and recapitulates the life of King David, and is in effect a "new David". Today, I plan on writing the first post of a multi-part blog series on the theme of "Israel", and specifically how Jesus is the "New Israel". In subsequent posts, I will expand on this theme and show that, contrary to much popular theology, this status as the new Israel is extended to include the Church. The rest of this series will thus be a defense of what is often (and pejoratively) referred to as "Replacement Theology".

Hymns are something that I didn't really experience until my later teenage years. As one who spent most of his growing up years within the "seeker sensitive" movement, I mostly heard modern praise songs and choruses (modern that is, for the 1990s and early 2000s). I still have a great love for those songs. But when I finally got to begin singing and learning classic hymns, I found in them something that had been missing prior. One of these hymns that I didn't really learn until I was into my twenties was "All Hail the Pow'r of Jesus' Name". It took a little while for me to warm up to it, but it has since become one of my favorite hymns. Both Chris Tomlin and Sovereign Grace Music have modernized it and added choruses. Both versions are highly recommended. The second verse, which I really enjoy reads like this:

Ye chosen seed of Israel's race

Ye ransomed from the Fall

Hail Him who saved you by His grace

And crown Him Lord of all

Hail Him who saved you by His grace

And crown Him Lord of all

The thing I love about this verse is that the hymn's author (Edward Perronet) recognizes that with the enthronement of Jesus, it is those who are ransomed from the Fall of Mankind who are the proper recipients of the title "Israel". But before we can really understand the Church's status as the spiritual Israel, it is first necessary to establish that the Church's Lord and Messiah is in fact the One who fully manifests and fulfills that honored and revered name.

In the early chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, the author describes how the events surrounding the conception, birth, and early years of Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecy. In chapter 2, we read of an angel who commanded Joseph to take Mary and Jesus with him to Egypt to escape the wrath of king Herod. As Matthew narrates the story, he references how the flight to Egypt fulfills the words of the prophet Hosea:

When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."

So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."  (Matthew 2:13-15 NIV)

On the surface of it, this may seem like a simple promise and fulfillment. The problem arises of course when you take a look at the original context of Hosea 11:1 which Matthew quotes. In the original context of Hosea, God is recounting how he had brought Israel out of Egypt, called them his "son" (Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31:9), and brought them to himself, but they had instead worshiped other gods. Despite all the fatherly care God had given them, they continually burned incense to false gods and bowed down to idols. There isn't a hint of predictive prophecy in Hosea 11. So how then can Matthew take from Hosea to prove that the Messiah had to go to Egypt and come back out again? Is Matthew playing fast and loose with the context of Scripture?

I believe that an answer can be found in Isaiah, and especially in the Servant Songs of chapters 40-53. In this section of the Hebrew Bible, we are introduced to a character called, "the Servant of the LORD", or just simply, "the Servant". In many cases, the Servant is identified with the nation of Israel (Isaiah 41:8; 44:1-2; 45:4). However, in chapter 49 we find something interesting. The Servant is both identified with and distinguished from Israel. 

Listen to me, you islands;

    hear this, you distant nations:

Before I was born the Lord called me;

    from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.

 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,

    in the shadow of his hand he hid me;

he made me into a polished arrow

    and concealed me in his quiver.

He said to me, “You are my servant,

    Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

 But I said, “I have labored in vain;

    I have spent my strength for nothing at all.

Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,

    and my reward is with my God.”

 And now the Lord says—

    he who formed me in the womb to be his servant

to bring Jacob back to him

    and gather Israel to himself,

for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord

    and my God has been my strength—

 he says:

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant

    to restore the tribes of Jacob

    and bring back those of Israel I have kept.

I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,

    that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

This is what the Lord says—

    the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—

to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation,

    to the servant of rulers:

“Kings will see you and stand up,

    princes will see and bow down,

because of the Lord, who is faithful,

    the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

(Isaiah 49:1-7 NIV)

Here in Isaiah 49, we learn of the Servant's relationship to the people of Israel as well as how he will relate to the gentiles. On the one hand, he will restore and bring Israel back to God, and yet he will also paradoxically find himself despised and rejected by the same. Additionally, he will also bring God's salvation to the gentiles. But despite being distinguished from the nation of Israel and having this complex relationship with them, God still addresses the Servant with the name "Israel". What should we make of this? I think that, as it was with the name "David", so it is with the name "Israel". The Servant/Messiah will personify, fulfill, and recapitulate in himself the history of Israel. 

Seeing this helps to make sense of how Matthew could use the Hosea passage and understand it messianically. It also helps us to understand the rest of the early chapters of Matthew. The nation of Israel began in the land of promise, went to Egypt, came out of Egypt, went through the waters of the Red Sea, spent 40 years in the desert, and came to the mountain where the Law was given. Likewise, Messiah Jesus, the true Israel, began in the promised land, went to Egypt, came out of Egypt, went through the waters of baptism, spent 40 days in the desert, and then came to a mountain where the New Law would be expounded. 

This motif of the Messiah as true Israel makes it easier to understand how that concept can then be applied to the Church which is in union with him. It is that issue to which I will turn in the next installment of this series. 

The Significance of Calling Jesus the Messiah, "David"

If you want to undertake a Bible study that is sure to make your head spin, try to understand how the New Testament uses, interprets, and applies the Old Testament. On occasion, you will find a 1-to-1 promise and fulfillment. Micah 5:2 predicts that the Messiah will come out of Bethlehem. A straightforward fulfillment is found in the first two chapters of Matthew. But other times, it is not so easy. Speaking of Matthew's Gospel, Matthew finds the flight of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to Egypt and their later return to Israel as fulfilling Hosea 11:1, even though we do not find a specific prophecy there (Matthew 2:13-15).

To make matters even more confusing, the Lord Jesus Himself seems to speak as if many of the Old Testament allusions he makes are self-evident and self-explanatory;

He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." (Luke 24:25-27 NIV). 

He said to them, "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:44-47 NIV)

"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?" (John 3:10 NIV)

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me..." (John 5:39 NIV)

So you see my problem. It is not always easy to figure out just how and where the OT (and especially the Psalms) so specifically predicts the events of the Gospel we preach. And yet Jesus himself speaks like it is obvious! You can see for example how the Lord rebukes the disciples on the road to Emmaus, calling them "slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken".

For the longest time this was somewhat of a mystery to me. But then I began to see something that gave me a clue. I started to find references in the Old Testament referring to this figure whom the Prophets refer to simply as "David". Now I am very familiar with David son of Jesse; the shepherd boy who slew Goliath, won many military victories, fled from Saul, penned Psalms, became Israel's second King, sinned with Uriah's wife, made plans to build a temple for God, etc... I knew of him. And yet these were not nostalgic looks back at the past; these were prophecies of the future. And somehow it seemed (and still seems) obvious to me that these words were not referring to the literal David, but rather to the Messiah who comes from David's line:

"In that day," declares the LORD Almighty, "I will break the yoke off their necks and will tear off their bonds; no longer will foreigners enslave them. Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them."  (Jeremiah 30:8-9 NIV)

"I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken."  (Ezekiel 34:23-24 NIV)

"My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever."  (Ezekiel 37:24-25 NIV)

"For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or household gods. Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days."   (Hosea 3:4-5 NIV)

So what is so significant about referring to the Messiah as "David"? How does this help me to understand how the NT quotes and applies the OT? The answer to that question is that the Prophets of the Old Testament understood the Messiah to not only be David's descendant and thus David's heir (see 2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 17; Isaiah 9:6-7), but they see him as David par excellence. The OT is giving us a clue that the Messiah would recapitulate and fulfill many of the elements of David's life. This explains why the NT writers apply many of the Psalms of David to Jesus.

So in what ways does Jesus the Messiah "recapitulate" David? How does David prefigure the Messiah? Space prevents a full examination, so I will only give a few examples. I will show how in the life of David, particularly in the Psalms, the OT predicts the suffering and exaltation of the Messiah.

Firstly, let us consider the betrayal of the Messiah. All of us are familiar with the treachery of Judas Iscariot; how he sold out to the Jewish leadership for 30 pieces of silver and later hanged himself out of sorrow. But did you know that this was already prefigured in the life of David? During the rebellion of Absalom, David's close adviser Ahithophel switched sides and backed Absalom (2 Samuel 15:12). Upon hearing this, David sent a spy into Absalom's circle called Hushai deliberately to counteract the influence and advice of Ahithophel (2 Samuel 15:32-37). David's ploy worked and Ahithophel's good advice was rejected by Absalom in favor of Hushai's subterfuge. And this is where it gets interesting:

When Ahithophel saw that his advice had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and set out for his house in his hometown. He put his house in order and then hanged himself. So he died and was buried in his father's tomb. (2 Samuel 17:23 NIV) 

Ahithophel obviously surmised that Absalom's revolt was doomed to fail and that David would hold him accountable. So Ahithophel ended his own life. David alludes to Ahithophel's treason in Psalm 41:9, Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me (see also Psalm 55:12-14; John 13:18). Based on this, it becomes easier to see how the Messiah (as the new David) also would have to endure the betrayal of a close friend who would later commit suicide by hanging himself. It also becomes apparent why the Eleven Apostles understood that Judas' Apostolic office needed a replacement (Psalm 69:25; 109:8; Acts 1:15-26).

Secondly, Seeing Jesus as the new and greater David also explains how the Psalms (and through them the Prophets) prefigured the Messiah's death. Concerning the Messiah's death, David said to God, "...you lay me in the dust of death" (Psalm 22:15 NIV) and "...though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death..." (Psalm 23:4 NKJV). These words of David become the words of the Messiah, showing that the Psalms understood that the Messiah would die. 

Lastly, the Davidic One, the Messiah must rise from the dead. David (and through him, the Messiah) says to God just shortly after being laid into the dust of death, "Save me from the lion's mouth and from the horns of the wild oxen! You have answered me". (Psalm 22:21 NKJV). He also writes, "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay. You make known to me the path of life..." (Psalm 16:9-11a NIV; see also Acts 2:25-32), and this, "He asked you for life, and you gave it to him - length of days, for ever and ever (Psalm 21:4 NIV).

There is so much more that could be unpacked here concerning how Messiah Jesus is the greater "David". But hopefully the small sample I have provided suffices to show that this is the case and that we can confidently read the Old Testament as Christian scripture.

Coming with the Clouds of Heaven

Sometimes I think that part of the reason it can seem difficult to understand how the Bible fits together is that the New Testament uses Greek idiom to describe the fulfillment of Hebrew hope. What do I mean by that? Well, it is commonly known that the Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew (with portions of Jeremiah and Daniel written in Aramaic), while the New Testament was written entirely in the Greek language. So what happens is that Greek terms (translated for us into English) are used to talk about Old Testament themes. Sometimes that's not much of a problem. For example the Greek word pascha (πάσχα) translates rather easily into English as Passover (as in John 2:13). But other times it is not easy. For example, the New Testament uses the phrases "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" even though those precise terms are never used in the Old Testament. But these are terms loaded with Old Testament significance as they describe the reign of the Messiah over restored Israel and the nations of the world.

The reason I bring it up is that sometimes it is not immediately clear that a New Testament passage might be drawing heavily on an Old Testament theme or promise, when it was likely more apparent to first century believers. That isn't a slam against modern Christians, it is just sometimes reality. It is the job of the leaders of the Church, particularly its teachers (1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11) to help Christians in their understanding of Scripture.

One of the areas where I believe more clarity would be welcome is in connecting specific passages of the Old Testament together with the New Testament to find out how Old Covenant hope is fulfilled in the present New Covenant/Kingdom age. My purpose today is to show how Christ's session at the Father's right hand in the "heavenly realms" fulfills, at least partially, the vision Daniel received in the seventh chapter of the book that bears his name. 

Daniel 7 describes a vision that the prophet Daniel received at the beginning of the reign of Belshazzar, king of Babylon. In it, Daniel saw four beasts which coincide with four empires that would arise subsequent to Daniel. Daniel also saw a vision of the Ancient of Days seated on his throne and the ultimate fate of the Beast and the "little horn" that speaks blasphemies against God. But it is verses 13 and 14 that most concern me here:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. 

(Daniel 7:13-14 NIV)

On the surface of it, it may seem like this is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled at the second coming of the Lord Jesus. After all, "coming with the clouds" sounds like second advent language. And it comes immediately after the destruction of the Beast and his being thrown alive into the blazing fire (Daniel 7:11; Revelation 19:20). But a closer look as well as an investigation into relevant New Testament texts reveals that actually this portion of the vision has already, and continues to be fulfilled. 

So how do I know that? Firstly let us consider the very words of Jesus. In Mark's gospel, we find Jesus arrested and standing before the Sanhedrin. The council found false witnesses against Jesus in an attempt to find excuse to have Jesus put to death. Frustrated in that attempt and seeing Jesus give no answer, the high priest directly questioned Jesus:

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. 

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?"

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

(Mark 14:60-62 NIV)

Jesus himself tells the Sanhedrin (and us) that Daniel's vision finds fulfillment in him and very shortly. Notice that his "coming on the clouds of heaven" is contemporaneous with his "sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One", which fulfills Psalm 110 (the most frequently cited Psalm in the entire New Testament, and obviously fulfilled). Further evidence is found in Jesus' words to the high priest, "...And YOU will see the Son of Man..." Jesus is saying that those in that very room would see Jesus glorified, sitting at God's right hand and coming on the clouds. It can't refer to the second coming since the high priest and all the members of the Sanhedrin are obviously long since dead. They would "see" the Son of Man glorified when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the fledgling Church and through its preaching.

So how exactly is it fulfilled in the first century in the days of Jesus and his opponents? A careful look at the passage in Daniel and a comparison of it with Acts 1 will make it apparent that it was in the ascension of Jesus that he "comes with the clouds of heaven".

Concerning Daniel 7:13-14, notice the movement of the Son of Man. As he comes with the clouds, he approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. In other words, this scene is not taking place on earth at all. It is an entirely heavenly scene. So how does that work with what we know of the New Testament? Consider first Acts 1:6-9:

Then they gathered around him and asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

That a cloud hid Jesus from the sight of the Eleven Apostles is not a coincidence. It was when Jesus ascended to the Father and was glorified at his right hand that Jesus came with the clouds and received his kingdom. Similar language is found in Ephesians. There, Paul speaks of: ...his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms.  (Ephesians 1:19-20 NIV). Much of Paul's descriptions of the blessings that Christians enjoy in Christ in the heavenly places comes right out of the book of Daniel!

Hopefully I have shown briefly that Jesus' ascension to the right hand of God in heaven is the fulfillment of at least part of Daniel's vision. There is still more yet to be fulfilled. The Kingdom of God has come upon us (Matthew 12:28; Luke 17:20-21; Colossians 1:13), but it has not yet come in all its fullness (Luke 22:15-16). Still to come is the day when: the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him (Daniel 8:27 NIV). 

The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: 

The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.

(Revelation 11:15 NIV). 

All That Is In the World

One of the most interesting and even most frustrating word studies one can do is on the word, "world" in the Bible. The reason it can be frustrating is that it seems like it is a word that has a different connotation every time it is used. For example, it can mean the planet we live on, also known as Earth (Psalm 24:1). It can also connote the people living on the planet called Earth (John 3:16). Another meaning of the word "world" is the one that I shall focus on here. Namely it refers to that system that is in opposition to God and His will and is under the power of the evil one, Satan. In other words, the "world" is everything that stands against the revealed will of God and works to subvert it (James 4:4).

All Christians have been called out of the world. That is, in fact, the meaning of the word "church". We are the "called out" ones. But all Christians still have to contend against that very world system out of which they were called. The Apostle John knew that struggle all too well. That is why he wrote letters to some of the churches in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) to encourage them in their walks with the Lord. At one point in his first epistle, John writes these words, warning believers about the allure of the world system at opposition to God:

Do not love the world or anything in he world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.   (1 John 2:15-17 NIV)

What I want to highlight in the above passage are the three things that John identifies as belonging to that God-opposed world system. Specifically, John lists the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life" as encapsulating all that is in the world, and that against which believers in the Lord Jesus must war against. 

Now it might interest you to know that John is actually borrowing something found in the book of Genesis. In fact, a close examination of all of John's Scriptural works (the Gospel of John, the epistles of John, and Revelation) reveal a number of allusions to events and themes in Genesis (and Ezekiel). If we go all the way back to the Garden of Eden and look closely, we will find the three world-defining traits in the events leading up to the fall of Mankind into sin. 

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 
(Genesis 3:1-6 NIV)

A close look at the passage reveals the three-pronged temptation that Eve (and Adam who was with her) faced that matches up exactly with what John identifies as belonging to the world. Eve saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), pleasing to the eye (the lust of the eyes), and desirable for gaining wisdom (the pride of life). What was true all the way back as far as the Garden of Eden was true in John's day and is true today. 

But John isn't the only Biblical writer to make this three-sided connection with the world system that Satan controls. The Gospel writer Luke also finds it in his account of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness:

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

The devil said to him "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone.'"

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours."

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here. For it is written:

'He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time. 

(Luke 4:1-13 NIV)

What is striking about Luke's account of the temptation is how he changes part of the order from Matthew's Gospel account. Most conservative commentators agree that whereas Matthew has a Jewish audience in mind and highlights Jesus' messianic credentials in fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic promises, Luke seems to be writing to a gentile audience (in this case, a man named Theophilus) and stresses the solidarity of Jesus with all of mankind. Indeed, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam in chapter 3. 

The difference in order is that while Matthew's account has the turn stones to bread, temple jump, kingdoms of the world order, Luke swaps the temple jump temptation with the devil showing Jesus the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worship (likely for thematic reasons and not for strict chronology). 

If one follows Luke's order of the devil's temptations, one can find that it corresponds with the same three-fold temptation found in the Garden of Eden and in John's first epistle! The devil tempts Jesus to satisfy his flesh by using miraculous powers to turn stones into bread - the lust of the flesh. Next, the devil shows Jesus all the earth's kingdoms with their pomp and splendor - the lust of the eyes. Lastly, Satan tries to get Jesus to throw himself from the temple in presumption that God would save him - the pride of life. Whereas Adam (along with his wife) failed on all three fronts, Jesus conquered the devil's temptations by using the power of Scripture, fully trusting that God would care for him. 

So what is the upshot to all of this? Well, obviously you and I face the same unholy trinity of temptations. The lust of the flesh is fairly easy to spot: sexual immorality, drugs, alcohol, food, and the list could go on. The lust of the eyes can be found in covetousness, unhealthy obsession with acquiring money, entertainment (particularly video games and "binge" watching Netflix, Hulu, et al...), obsession with one's favorite sports team(s), and so on. Lastly, the pride of life can manifest itself in a number of ways including, but not limited to: boasting about one's accomplishments (real or imagined), unreasonable anger and bitterness, a sense of entitlement, holding heretical doctrines (as if one knows better than revealed religion), bullying, and attention seeking.

While all Christians are commanded to guard against these three areas, pastors and other church leaders are especially vulnerable. I am sure the reader is quite capable of filling in the blanks of names, but ask yourself what seem to be the primary things that get pastors in trouble. When scandals involving church leaders happen, is it not often because they got caught with their pants down, were bilking people for money, or became unreasonable, angry jerks? Do you see the pattern?

All believers have to war against sin and temptation. The fight is terrible and sometimes it seems like a losing one. But there is good news! Jesus defeated temptation once and for all. Where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. While the first Adam disobeyed God in a garden and at the foot of a tree, the last Adam said to God in a garden, "...Not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39) and went obediently to a tree (1 Peter 2:24 NKJV) to atone for sins. We can rest confidently of victory as we consider ourselves to be "dead to sin and alive to righteousness" (Romans 6:11). A New Heaven and New Earth is coming in which nothing impure will ever enter (Revelation 21:27). I leave you with the words of the second stanza of the old hymn, Lead On, O King Eternal:

Lead on, O King eternal,

till sin's fierce war shall cease,

and holiness shall whisper

the sweet amen of peace.

For not with swords' loud clashing

nor roll of stirring drums

with deeds of love and mercy

the heavenly kingdom comes.

What is That to You? You Follow Me. John 21:20-23

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”

 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

This exchange between the Lord Jesus and Peter took place immediately after Jesus had restored Peter. Peter, we remember had denied the Lord three times just before the Crucifixion and here, Jesus applies to Peter a threefold restoration. 

It was in the very next verses that we read of Peter's inquiry about the Lord's plans for John (the disciple whom Jesus loved). Jesus' reply was simple. In essence, the Lord told Peter that it really wasn't his business. If Jesus had this plan or that plan for John, what difference does that make for Peter? Peter is simply admonished to follow Jesus for himself, and not worry too much about what the Lord may have for another. 

For myself, I confess that this has been a liberating thought. In the past, I would stress about how God is working in this ministry or that movement, or the church up the road. How is God present over there, where they do or believe weird things!? Or how can that guy have a calling from God when he doesn't think or behave the way I would? Or how is it that God worked in the past when people had completely different values or were so blind about this issue or that issue?

Now it's true that there are times when a person, ministry, or church is clearly out of bounds biblically - whether in doctrine, practice, or behavior. But just as often, if not more so, sometimes we just have to conclude that it's none of our business what God did or is doing in other parts of the world or what He did with other Christians in the past. My goal is simply to follow Jesus where He has me right now. 

Of course, we can't press this too far. We do need to be concerned with and praying for other Christians in our direct sphere of influence. God may indeed be bringing two or more Christians together into a single plan. My point is that each of us is to follow Jesus for ourselves. The Lord is leading each of us in His sovereign will. While we will intersect with other Christians on numerous occasions, ultimately we must not worry ourselves too much about the big picture plans Jesus has for others. We must simply follow Him. Amen.