Thus, in order to properly understand the context of this post, please start with Post 1 before continuing below, as I anticipate that each post to build upon each other.

Aim of this Review
Please understand that I have no intention of fully presenting each author’s point of view. Instead, my aim is to present a basic overview of each man’s position, as I understood it, and then provide some quotes to highlight the strength and weaknesses of each author.

Overview of Willem A. Van Gemeren’s “Reformed” Essay on Law and Gospel
Though I myself adhere to the ‘Reformed’ view on Law and Gospel, I found this essay by Willem A. Van Gemeren to be the weakest in the book. Though I agree with his view on just about every point, I did not find his essay convincing or properly presented for the format of this discussion (which was debate-style, apologetic type book). The essay simply seemed unorganized, broad, with no real progression of argument, and written as if the reading audience was one that was already convinced of his position.

Summary of the Reformed position:
The Reformed position is one that believes there to be continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament Law, with discontinuity only being identified by NT texts. This is in contrast to total discontinuity argued for by Dispensationalism/New Covenant Theology (NCT). The Reformed position divides the Law of God into 3 categories: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial Law. Moral Law in the Old Testament is not repealed for Christians in the NT. Civil Law, in contrast to Bahnsen’s Theonomic view, has (largely) been repealed by the New Testament/New Covenant. And Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in the appearing, Person, and work of Jesus Christ. These categories are helpful in helping us understand the OT Law in relation to the NT law, but are not categories explicitly used in scripture. In addition to this, the Reformed position sees the 10 commandments as the summary of the ‘moral’ law, and from texts like Romans 2, would argue that this same moral law has been written on the hearts of all men.

Here are some choice quotes to help you understand for yourself what the author presents: [My comments here will be preceded by '--NW']

P15: “…Law and Gospel are not in opposition to each other because Law contains Gospel and the Gospel contains Law. Both Law and Gospel affirm the place of the moral law as a “perfect rule of righteousness.”

p16: “The total witness of the Old and the New Testament has a “basic unity and continuity of the biblical ethic.”

P16: “…the Reformed view of the law of God is the result of integration of exegesis” P16 –NW: On this point I believe the author makes a very important point. Throughout the book it becomes clear that Strickland and Moo, and to some extent Bahnsen, rely on arguments that are largely theology and structurally driven. However, I also saw Van Gemeren’s essay as severely lacking in exegesis as well, but I believe his overall position (which is almost identical to Kaiser’s) is the only one explicitly driven by exegesis of the text rather than an overarching system of theology ruling the interpretation.

P20-21: he argues from the Hebrew that the nouns and verbs that describe Noah being ‘righteous’ and Abraham who “obeyed Me and kept My requirements”, anticipated the revelation at Mount Sinai. In other words, the obedience of these men is described as synonyms of obedience to the Mosaic (moral) Law –thus the moral portion of the Law given to Moses was not something new, a very important point.

P20-21: he argues that the moral law revealed in the Creation order is the same law that Noah and Abraham had ‘internalized’, though unwritten, and that “the written law became necessary because of human sin and hardness of heart.” But “Since the will of God does not change, the law remains virtually the same throughout redemptive history.”

P25: after quoting Psalm 147 and Psalm 19: “Far from looking at the law as a negative experience, saints in the Old Testament rejoiced in this revelation…” Many similar passages/comments are made.

P27: “Moses’ ministry prepared the people for the coming of Christ. Hebrews portrays him as a witness to the coming of Jesus Christ (Heb 3:5)…Moses witnessed through the Torah to the spirituality of the covenant and to the need of a redeemer whose atonement would remove the burden of the law.” –NW: Here is a great section identifying the Christocentric nature of the OT Law, culminating in the following statements, which show that the Law has never been an end or focus itself, but has always had Christ at its center.

P28: “The Mosaic covenant is a development of God’s covenant with creation…and with Abraham…In other words, the Mosaic covenant is a sovereign administration of grace and promise by which the Lord consecrated a people to Himself under the sanctions of His holy law…The Law was never intended to be the focus or the end in itself.”

P29: “The Decalogue…opening provides a constant reminder that the context of law is God’s work of redemption: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2)”. Obedience to the commandments is in response to God’s grace in being Israel’s deliverer.” –NW: A good point when we consider all the NT texts which refer to our salvation as ‘redemption’, and other phrases drawing from the imagery of the Exodus from the bondage of Egypt. The people of Israel and their Exodus is a picture of the People of God and the Exodus found through faith in Christ. And the giving of the Law has always been an act of God’s grace; and our obedience has always been first and foremost out of love in response to what God has done for us.

P34: Regarding the concept of love that underlies the Law: “C. Craigie sees rightly law and covenant in the context of love: “The Decalogue was representative of God’s love in that its injunctions, both negative and positive, led not to a restriction of life, but to fullness of life.”

P34: “Obedience to the law always begins with a heart that fears the Lord…” And he goes on to examine several Old Testament texts such as Prov 3:5-7, Psalm 15 and 24, Isa. 57:15 and 66:1-2, Mic. 6:8, Hos 6:6 and Zech 8:16-17, to demonstrate that obedience to God’s law, even OT law, always entails heart obedience rather than just outward obedience.

P36: “The Ten commandments, as a summary of the moral law, are a guide in the imitation of God. By the Spirit the letter becomes alive and powerful within the hearts of the godly.”

P38: “Jesus gave a stricter observance of external concerns than the rabbis. He rejected the mere observance of external concerns and complacency with tradition…He abrogated not one commandment but instead intensified them all.” –NW: Furthermore, the entire New Testament intensifies the commandments. The New Testament opens them up, expands them in revealing their true nature, builds principles/inferences upon them, and presses them home at the root level of the heart. This is much different than the replacement idea of a ‘new’ law that is argued for by Dispensationalism/NCT.

P38: quoting John Murray: “…Jesus came to realize the full measure of the intent and purpose of the law and the prophets…to bring to full fruition and perfect fulfillment the law and the prophets.”p39: “…Jesus simplified the complexity of the Mosaic law by focusing on one word (“love”)…Because He is greater than Moses…He authoritatively summarized the moral law of God in two commandments…”

P42: “…I agree with Ladd when he says, “more than once he [the apostle Paul] asserts that it is the new life of the Spirit that enables the Christian truly to fulfill the Law (Rom. 8:3-4; 13:10; Gal. 5:14).

P45: Quoting E.F. Kevan: “Any change in relation to Law that occurs in Christianity is not in the Law but in the believer…To say that Christian conduct is now governed by holy principles is…incorrect…if it meant that any withdrawal or modification of the Law.”

P45: Discussing the need and relevance of the Law: “Sin and rebelliousness keep humans from reflecting the divine perfections and from understanding the moral law as revealed in creation….The Law at Mount Sinai made much more explicit the moral law and supplemented the moral law with ceremonial and judicial regulations.”

P48: “The Mosaic administration by itself is incomplete but has an eschatological and Christological focus.”

P51: “The law is “the heart and core of Scripture” (quoting Hesselink on Calvin). “…the prophets and psalmists, apostles and Christ Himself are all nothing but expounders and interpreters of the law.” –NW: Again, Christ and the NT authors expound and interpret the Law; they never replace it.

P51: The law…”used to be a pedagogue…but now that Christ has come, He is the focus, the perfection, the complement, the fulfillment of the law…whatever perfections the law has, they reveal Christ.” –NW: Again, the Christocentric nature of the OT Law clearly continues on, as Christ continues on. To replace the OT Law is to annul its Christocentric nature.

P51: Quoting Hesselink, “The whole of the law then -not only the covenant but also its promises, threats, rules and regulations, sacrifices and ceremonies- finds its meaning in Christ who is its life, soul, spirit, substance, fulfillment and goal.”

P52: “What then is the power of the moral law since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Negatively, it no longer has the power to bind (Rom 7:6; Matt 5:17) or condemn us…by its teachings, admonishments, reproofs, and corrections, the law is the instrument of growth in faith and sanctification (2 Tim 3:16-17).

P53: “The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments and was supplemented by the ceremonial and judicial laws.”

P53: “The moral law is the rule of perfect righteousness.” –NW: This is supplemented by Jesus and the Apostles as well (Matt 19:16).

P54: “These commandments (Ten) put our love for God to the test, because it is all too easy to assume to one’s relationship with God is good.”

P55: “Berkouwer express it pointedly, “There is no difference between Christian liberty and being ‘under the law of Christ.’”

Here are some excerpts of Greg Bahnsen’s reply to this essay:

P59: “Our hearts surely beat in tune with the recurring and tender not throughout Dr. VanGemeren’s essay that Sprit-given understanding of the Law of God serves to magnify our need and love for the gospel of God’s grace in Christ.”

P61: “The task of critically analyzing VanGemeren’s essay…however, is made almost impossible by his manner of presentation. To go right to the point: there is simply nothing like an argument here -no discursive and systematic unfolding of a particular and clearly defined conclusion (or interrelated set of conclusions)…It is sometimes not easy to find natural transitions, logical connections or subordination between points, interfacing of of interpretations of texts, conceptual synthesis, or precision.”

P64: “…the judicial code is simply the application of the Decalogue (and thus an unpacking of its meaning).” –NW: With this I agree, though I do not see how his argument for Theonomy then follows from this premise. (More on this when we get to Bahnsen’s essay.)

P65: “…when God’s people get embroiled in moral dilemmas, they desire more inspired law (guidance), not less. It is surely no blessing to be left only with broad generalities: e.g., see how many people are blessed and happy by trying to play a basketball game under the single rule of ‘play fair’.” –NW: A very poignant reminder that all forms of antinomianism down through history have lead to eventual shipwreck.

P65: “In the teaching of Jesus (as well as of Paul), love does not replace the law (or its complexity then), but provides a summary statement. A summary does not abrogate that which it summarizes.”

P67: “The judicial law was not…’abrogated’…what was binding in the judicial laws was not their specific cultural form, but their underlying principle or purpose.” –NW: Here Bahnsen simply disagrees with the statements made by VanGermeren that the judicial laws have been abrogated. I think Bahnsen makes a great point, but again, I do not see how his position then follows; this is something I will expand upon when we get to his presentation.

Here are some excerpts of Walter Kaiser’s reply to this essay:

P70: “The covenant of Grace is divided into two ‘administrations’: Law and Gospel, even though neither administration is devoid of either Law or Gospel, since Law contains the Gospel and Gospel contains the Law.”

P70: “The focus of biblical ethics remains very much the same for both Old and New Testaments…It is the call for holiness of life. Since God is holy, His moral law is holy.”

P71: “Following the lead of Calvin, VanGemeren argues for the existence of a moral order in creation prior to the publication of the will of God in the Mosaic covenant…This natural law reveals both the will of God and His attributes. It is for this reason that the human race was accountable to the same standard of righteousness even prior to the publication of the law of God under Moses…I find this to be an especially strong argument.”

P72: Discussing apparent contradictions in statements of the Apostle Paul, “…the Christian belongs to the new creation of God and therefore may use the law of God only as it is internalized by the Holy Spirit in producing righteousness and in creating a new community that fulfills the law of love. This is not to argue for some new replacement theology wherein the Spirit now replaces the law, but it is to recognize the key role that the Holy Spirit plays in transforming us to apply the moral law of God.”

P75: Discussing the third use of the law, Kaiser says, “This third use of the law guides believers in righteousness, provides a basis for obedience, yet does so without enslaving any who are so bound to this, which may now also be called the “law of Christ”.

P75: “God’s law can only be kept by His grace. Moreover, as VanGemeren concludes, it may only be appreciated in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and kept by the power of the Holy Spirit –all this is true for either Testament!”

Here are some excerpts of Wayne Strickland’s reply to this essay:

Strickland focuses on some details like some NT commands that aren’t found in the Old, or that contradict the Old, like marriage to non-Jews (P79).

P80: commenting on Heb 8:6, “…there has been an abrogation of the entire Mosaic law with the coming of Christ…”

P80: “…it is not the moral law of the Mosaic code that the Holy Spirit employs to supervise the believer; rather, it is the law of Christ that is made imperative by the Spirit.” –NW: Note, throughout the book, neither Strickland nor Moo ever really define this ‘law of Christ’, other than implying that it only contains what is repeated in the New Testament alone. Very ambiguous.

P81: Strickland mentions that the Sabbath commandment ‘provides a mechanism for testing the accuracy and coherency of the Reformed paradigm with regard to the applicability of the law in ethics.” –NW: This is an fairly accurate observation, but it fails to recognize the greater implications of the differences between the Reformed and Dispensational/NCT position. The Sabbath is often seen as the crux, but it is the overall hermenutic that has greater (often unseen on the surface) and more serious implications.

P81: Strickland then goes on to argue that the Sabbath was never a creation ordinance, that it has been abrogated in the NT, that it has not changed to Sunday, thus the authority of the entire Decalogue is undermined. –NW: Weak arguments that fail to account for the development and support of the Sabbath in the New Testament, not to mention the explicit upholding of the Decalogue in the New Testament. But this is surprisingly one of the only times in the book the Sabbath comes up, so I will not deal with it here.

P82: “…submission and obedience must be to the law of Christ rather than to the law of Moses.” –NW: A very misleading statement, for Reformed theologians would agree that Moses is not our head or our teacher. We would argue that the ‘law of Christ’ has the Law of Moses as its foundation and support. Just like the ‘Israel of God’ is not an entirely new creation, but a starting with ethnic Isreal and then expanding to all the nations, the Law of God starts with Israel as its foundation and is opened up by Jesus and the Apostles to reach its true meanining/intention.

Here are some excerpts of Doug Moo’s reply to this essay:

P83: “I commend VanGemeren for insisting on the clear and unchanging standards of God’s moral law.”

P85: “I want to make clear that I am not denying that the Mosaic law, especially the Ten Commandments, contains principles and requirements that reflect God’s eternal moral will. My point, rather, is that the Mosaic law is not identical with this eternal moral law.” –NW: Reformed theologians would agree that the 10 are not exhaustive of the moral law, but is rather how God/scripture summarizes the essence of the moral law, but would disagree that the Ten are (ultimately) subjective/optional principles, retaining instead their status as commands.

P85: “What is the evidence for treating the Ten Commandments as eternal moral law in distinction from the rest of the Mosaic Law? VanGemeren provides little. He notes that these ‘ten words’ are apodictic in form, expressing therefore principles upon which the rest of the law is built.” –NW: He is right in that Van Gemeren provides little justification of this, but he would be wrong in assuming that this Biblical justification does not exist.

P85: Commenting on Col. 2:14: “Clearly…Paul would not be thinking only of sins committed against the ceremonial law; he must be thinking of the Mosaic law as a whole.” –NW: Of course, but this fails to grasp the Reformed position, and deal properly with the issue of obedience/sanctification of the law, rather than simply justification only. This error by Moo and Strickland can be seen throughout.

P86: “Paul claims explicitly that Christians, led by the Spirit and subject to the ‘law of Christ’…are not ‘under law’ (the Mosaic law).” –NW: A shallow dealing with Paul’s argument, what Paul means by ‘law of Christ’, and how not being ‘under law’ means the Mosaic law only. Too many questions/contradictions not dealt with here.

P87: “There is no evidence that Jesus isolated the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic law and put them in a separate category.” –NW: One wonders how Moo can say this considering the most famous and far-reaching sermon of all time, the Sermon on the Mount, not to mention Matthew 19…etc.

P87: commenting on Mark 7 where Jesus declares all foods clean, “…Mark is telling us that Jesus teaches that His followers need no longer obey large sections of the Mosaic law. I am not necessarily claiming that this means that we, as new covenant believers, no longer obey the law in the form it was originally given; we are not directly under its authority.” –NW: We are not under the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant Law is the foundation upon which the New Covenant is built and sustained.

P87: “It is only as we look at the way that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament treat the commandments of the Mosaic law that we can know which ones continue to apply directly to us and which ones no longer do.” –NW: This is as close as he gets to defining this ‘law of Christ’. However, Moo makes a great point here; the NT and the Spirit teach us how to interpret, apply, and divide the OT Law.

P88: “…(Christ) is the ‘filter’ through which the whole law must go…”

P88: “…worshiping on the first day of the week is not what the fourth commandment requires: It explicitly requires cessation of work on the seventh day.” –NW: Clearly Moo misses the point of the command, and fails to account for the full, biblical development of the 4th commandment (which continues on into eternity…thus it is a moral issue; a baffling oversight on his part), particularly in what we see in Isaiah 58, etc.

P88: Just like Strickland, Moo argues that the Sabbath commandment is the “crucial ‘test case’, suggesting that the Ten Commandments, in their Mosaic form, were not intended by God to be eternally binding on all people everywhere.” –NW: This, like Strickland, fails to see the greater implications of the disagreement.

P89: Speaking of the other 9 commandments (minus the Sabbath), “They are binding on us not because they are in the Ten Commandments but because the New Testament makes clear that they are expressions of God’s eternal moral law.” –NW: One is left wondering how such a position can be consistently maintained and applied. This example shows why Moo is repeatedly the most ambiguous and subjective of all the participants in the book.

P89: “…Christians live under the ‘law of Christ’ and not under the Mosaic law.” –NW: The crux of the matter here is that Moo (as we will see) argues for a form of Replacement theology that exegesis simply cannot support.

That is certainly more than enough for this portion. Next I will attempt to review Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomic position, which I hope will be a much shorter post.

The contributors and their respective positions are as follows:

• Wayne G. Strickland: Dispensational
• Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: ‘Evangelical’
• Douglas J. Moo: ‘Modified Lutheran’
• Willem A. Van Gemeren: Reformed
• Greg Bahnsen: Theonomic

Because of the book’s length (416 pages of heavy material), I have decided to break up my review into 6 sections: this introduction post and 5 posts examining each position and their counter-points. This way there will be room for me (and you) to examine the claims and counter-claims.

Introduction

I have found the book fairly easy to read, but somewhat redundant. 400 pages is just too short of a space to present 5 different views. So because of the short space, there is not as much interaction as one would hope for. Basically, the author’s present their position based upon a number of proof texts, and the other authors don’t have the space to do much more than state broad counter-arguments and deal with one or two texts in depth. But as an broad overview of the respective positions, this book is a good introduction.

In reviewing this book, please note that I come at this discussion from a particular position, a Reformed Baptist position, you might say. You can cross-reference my confession for its statement on this issue if you like. Thus, my objective is not to present each position equally per se, but to simply cherry-pick a few statements where I agree or disagree, sharing a few thoughts of my own along the way. No matter where you come down on this issue, there are going to be stronger and weaker points of your position –and I hope to highlight some of these for each position, including my own.

Other important thing to remember about this book is that there are obviously strengths and weaknesses of each author and their ability to communicate and debate. This is unfortunate, in a way, because it can sway the reader in the direction of a particular position simply because the argument is better (rather than the truthfulness of scripture).

For example, I found the Reformed view, written by Willem A. Van Gemeren, to be the weakest in the book. Now on paper I agree with his view on just about every point, but he clearly did not write his essay from an apologetic or debate-like standpoint, and he is much less convincing than any of the other authors.

Another example with be Greg Bahnsen’s essay. I’m probably futher away from Bahnsen theologically, but he is a brilliant debator and I found his paper much more convincing than I anticipated.

So keep these things in mind, including the fact that we all approach this subject with presuppositions, when trying to be fair and objective in examining this book.

General Observations

When we get to where the rubber meets the road, I found that the authors had much more agreement than disagreement. Basically, from my perspective, they all agree with some continuity of Law between Old Testament and New Testament, thus they end up spending their time arguing over how much, and what theological perspective we use in determining this.

Bahnsen, Van Gemeren, and Kaiser are in almost 100% agreement, with Bahnsen’s theonomy being the only significant point of disagreement.

On the other side of the ring, Moo and Strickland are in almost 100% agreement, though they differ on how they each get there.

Thus, the book really ends up being 3 against 2, with Bahnsen kind of being the odd man in the middle (all disagree with him on theonomy).

Furthermore, I found Kaiser to be the most exegetical (which isn’t surprising), with Bahnsen and Moo close behind. Van Gemeren was clearly the most dogmatic and theological.

Note the length of each essay:

• Wayne G. Strickland: 50 pages
• Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: 22 pages
• Douglas J. Moo: 57 pages
• Willem A. Van Gemeren: 45 pages
• Greg Bahnsen: 50 pages

From a personal standpoint, I found myself aligning most with Kaiser’s view (his essay was the strongest, IMO, even though it was by far the shortest), followed by Van Germeren, then Bahnsen, Moo, and least of all, with Strickand. I certainly wish that some of the key texts were isolated and all 5 guys presented their own exegesis for us to review, but there is enough here to form some very clear opinions.

Conclusion

A good introduction to the Law/Gospel issue, though there are some pretty big theological words used throughout. I would recommend it to the semi-advanced student of theology and layman.

Next post: I will examine the introductory essay, the Reformed view, by Willem A. Van Gemeren, and the counter-arguments from the other men.

But before I leave the subject, let me point you to a masterful resource of material concerning my view. Sam Waldron, noted Reformed Baptist (and Southern Baptist, SBC), posted a series of articles in response to John MacArthur’s now-infamous sermon on Eschatology at the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference. Links to the entire series of articles are below.

Let me encourage you, no matter what your position may be, to check out at least a few of the articles below. I have arranged them by their title so that you can read about the issue you personally question with the most. I assure you that Waldron rightly deals with and refutes the many accusations of a ’spiritual hermeneutic’ and ‘not taking things literally’, etc., that often come from those who simply do not fully understand the non-millennium position. I have not seen a response or rebuttal to any of these articles, so if any of my readers happen to know of something, please let me know.

The overall title of this series is “MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto“

• MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: Chapter 1–John MacArthur Is My Friend!

• MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto Chapter Two

• Chapter One–Supplementary Excursus

• Chapter 3: MacArthur Versus Church History!

• Transcript of His Message
• Chapter 4–Not Your Father’s Amillennialism

• Chapter 5: The Israel of God!–Introduction

• Chapter 5: The Israel of God!–Galatians 6:16

• Chapter 5: The Israel of God!–Romans 9:6

• Chapter 5: The Israel of God!–1 Corinthians 10:18; 12:2

• Chapter 5: The Israel of God!–Ephesians 2:11-19

• Chapter 5: The Israel of God!—Conclusion

• Chapter 6: Who’s a Spiritualizer?–Introduction

• Chapter 6: Who’s a Spiritualizer?—Literal, Normal, Factual, Face-Value, Specific Interpretation

• Chapter 6: Who’s a Spiritualizer?—The Case of Genesis 1-3

• Chapter 6: Who’s a Spiritualizer?—”Literal Hermeneutics”

• Chapter 6: Who’s a Spiritualizer?—The Literal Truth about the Church Being Israel

• Chapter 6: Who’s a Spiritualizer?—The Church as the Elect Remnant of Israel

• Chapter 6: Who’s a Spiritualizer?—Must Israelites be Ethnic Jews?

• Chapter 6: Who’s a Spiritualizer?—Conclusion

• Chapter 7: Why doesn’t the Church as the Israel of God inherit Israel’s curses as well as its blessings?

• Chapter 8: Of Jewish Evangelism

• Chapter 9: Together for the Gospel?–Zeal according to knowledge?

• Chapter 9: Together for the Gospel?–Of Panmillennialism and Hyper-Preterism!

• Chapter 9: Together for the Gospel?–Is there an issue in the house?

Please note that my answers will be brief and in an outline type of form, as a full treatment of each subject is not my intention. I will be glad to answer questions or to point you to further material on the subject upon request.

The first question is:

How many peoples of God are there? That is, does God have two different plans for two different groups of people? Do not the scriptures teach of one bride, one flock, one church, one faith? What do the scriptures say? (Not the systems)

Before reading, please note that:

• Dispensationalism is a very complex and in-depth subject which cannot be fully dealt with here.
• Today I am simply tackling Dispensationalism as it directly relates to what the New Testament teaches concerning the subject. My purpose it not to ignore the Old Testament passages in this discussion. However, I am under the conviction that Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles had a correct understanding of OT eschatology, and that their writings on the subject clearly contradict today’s systems which relay almost exclusively on OT scripture.

Are there two plans/two peoples of God? Or, most specifically, does God have a separate, distinct, and special plan for the nation of Israel which the Gentile Church will not participate in?

• Scan the New Testament passages on Christ’s second coming and the end of the age, and you will not find any references to a restoration of the nation of Israel.
  • Instead of mentioning different races of people, Jesus and the Apostles instead refer constantly to the good and evil, just and unjust, etc.
  • Some use Romans 11:26, but the passage speaks nothing of the sort. The nation isn’t mentioned (as in a political power), a kingdom isn’t mentioned, a temple…the land…etc. isn’t mentioned. The end of the age and Christ’s second coming isn’t even mentioned! Simply put, whatever your take on that passage, it clearly cannot be used as a verse that teaches anything but spiritual regeneration.
  • Paul taught extensively on the second coming in 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, but he never points his audience to any national promises, earthly kingdoms, or glorious future for the Jewish race. Neither did Jesus or any other of the Apostles. Instead, they clearly taught that Gentiles were joint heirs to the OT promises of God, and that in Christ all of the promises are ‘yes and amen’.

  
  

• Interestingly enough, Jesus and the Apostles seem to depict the nation of Israel in the negative light at the end of the age, and not in a positive manner.
  • “the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. – Matt 8:12
  • “I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” – Matt 21:43
  • “Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.” – Luke 14:23
  • “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.” – Luke 23:28
  • “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites..” – Rom 9 (If Israel had a glorious future, why would Paul say such things?)

  
  

• But why does the Old Testament continually teach a restoration of the nation Israel, complete with a rebuilt Temple, renewed sacrificial system/priesthood?
  • Clearly, the nation of Israel was a type and a shadow of the people of God, chronicled in scripture for our example and instruction.
  • More specifically, the new testament teaches us that Gentiles are recipients of the promises given to Israel in the Old Testament, and the Apostles clearly instructed the church on eschatology with this foundational principle in place:
    • Gentiles have been grafted in to the olive tree, Israel. Rom 11
    • Paul teaches us that through faith in Christ we are ‘Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.’ – Gal 3
    • Jesus teaches us that there is ‘one flock, one Shepherd.’ – John 10
    • Peter says that we Gentiles ‘are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession’. – 1 Peter 2:0
    • Hebrews 8 refers back to the Old Testament promise of the New Covenant, and directly applies it to the New Covenant Church.
    • Paul declares the true Jews are circumcised in heart (Rom 2:29), and elsewhere instructs the Colossians that ‘In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.’ – Col 2
    • Paul refers to Gentile Christians as the ‘true circumcision’, in Phil 3.

Conclusion:

The New Testament is not short on eschatological instruction, and we must be diligent in understanding that the OT cannot and will not contradict what the NT clearly teaches. So before my dispensational brethren jump all over me for this post, the force of my argument here cannot be fully understood outside of answering the remaining 6 questions I set forth last week. If I am wrong on this question, then we should expect me to have a whole lot of trouble on the remaining 6.

Accordingly, if the New Testament teaches us that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, and that the dividing wall separating Jews and Gentiles has been broken down and abolished, who are we to run back to the Old Testament and reinstitute these distinctions into the promises of God?

Thus, I believe it is safe to say that most of my readers know and understand that scripture teaches that the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been broken down with Christ. All who are in Christ through faith are a part of the true Israel, that is, the ‘holy nation’ of God, and that dividing up different races in the eschatological future is not the teaching of scripture, neither Old or New.

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. – Eph 2