|
POSTED
28 JANUARY, 2009
Contemporary
Options Concerning "Israel"
by
J.K. McKee
editor@tnnonline.net
Our theology as the emerging Messianic movement regarding Israel is
often a series of assumptions, rather than a
series of well thought out postulations with
detailed Biblical support. We assume that all
Believers are a part of the Commonwealth of
Israel. We assume that all Believers are to keep
the Torah. We assume that everyone knows about
the prophesied restoration of Israel, something
that involves Judah, scattered Israel/Ephraim,
and the nations. We assume that everyone
knows what we are talking about.
Assumptions are not always bad. When we read the Holy Scriptures,
we often bring assumptions about God, His love,
and His relationship to us to the Biblical
text—all based on our experiences with Him. Some
of these assumptions are confirmed in our
reading, some of them are challenged and
refined, and some of them are proven wrong. One
of the biggest assumptions that can get
challenged when reading the whole Bible is
seeing that when the Messiah came, His intention
was not to come and start a different “Church”
as a second group of elect, but instead bring
Israel into its fullness. Few, sadly, can make
the connections between the following verses:
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and
upon this rock I will build My church; and
the gates of Hades will not overpower it”
(Matthew 16:18).
“I
will restore the fortunes of Judah and the
fortunes of Israel and will rebuild them as
they were at first” (Jeremiah 33:7).
In Matthew 16:18, the clause that is frequently translated “I will
build My church” is oikodomēsō mou tēn
ekklēsian. In Jeremiah 33:7, the Lord says
of Israel, u’benitim, which was
translated in the Septuagint as kai
oikodomēsō autous. The Hebrew verb banah
was rendered by the Greek verb oikodomeō,
which can mean both “build” or “rebuild” (HALOT,
1:139; BDAG, 696), and it is frequently
noted that ekklēsia or “church” has
connections with Ancient Israel (K.L. Schmidt,
in TDNT, pp 397, 399). It is unavoidable
that the same exact verb, oikodomēsō
(first person singular, future active), appears
in both Matthew 16:18 and the LXX of Jeremiah
33:7. It is not at all difficult to see that
Matthew’s Gospel makes a connection between
Yeshua’s declaration and the prophesied
restoration of Israel.
For a number of years now in the 2000s, many of us have known
things like these, and they have confirmed
convictions that the Lord has shown us, as He
has led many people into the Messianic movement
and our numbers have swelled considerably. But
in our interactions with others, our assumptions
often get in the way, and we often fail to
consider that in the wider world of theology not
everyone may share our convictions about God’s
people, Israel, and what appears to be happening
in this hour. Even among those who share a great
number of our convictions about the relevancy of
the Torah, there is variance about the
prophecies of Israel’s restoration. And, even
among those who share similar points of view
about the prophecies of Israel’s restoration,
there is a variance of opinion about how the
Messianic movement should look, function, and
develop for the future.
I would like to take a moment and briefly summarize some of the
options we have before us concerning “Israel.”
Knowing about these can affect how we interact
with various theologians, pastors, and Messianic
teachers today. Knowing about these can also
affect how we need to refine our vision and
mission as a Messianic community that possesses
a great deal of potential to make a difference
not only in seeing Jewish people come to faith
in Yeshua, but also in seeing Christians return
to a fuller understanding of the Bible:
Dispensationalism
is the most common approach found today
among evangelical Christians in their
approach to Israel. It advocates that God
has two groups of elect: Israel and the
Church. Because the Jewish people largely
rejected the Messiah in the First Century,
God’s plan was to put Israel on hold so He
could build a Christian Church that would be
responsible for spreading the gospel to the
far reaches of the Earth. Once the times of
the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24), and
all the Gentiles who are supposed to be
saved are saved (Romans 11:25), the
pre-tribulation rapture will come. The
Church will be removed and God will
immediately be concerned about Israel again.
Pros:
Dispensationalists recognize that God’s
promises and covenants with Israel are
eternal. Dispensationalists are some of the
strongest Christian supporters of today’s
State of Israel.
Cons:
Dispensationalists often advocate that the
only Scriptures relevant to non-Jewish
Believers today are those books of the Bible
which solely concern the Gentiles, meaning
at best the New Testament, but in many cases
only the Pauline Epistles. This leaves the
Old Testament largely unaddressed. Likewise,
much of the Christian support of Israel by
dispensationalists is only to accelerate the
timing of end-time prophecies, intending to
make the pre-tribulation rapture sooner
rather than later.
Replacement Theology
is a frequently advocated approach found
today among some evangelical Christians, but
is much more common with the historic
churches that stem from the Reformation. Its
approach is that because of the Jewish
people’s rejection of the Messiah in the
First Century, God has transferred Israel’s
promises to the Church. Various Old
Testament prophecies that would appear to
concern an Israel blessed by Him and/or
regathered back to a physical Promised Land,
are often spiritualized or allegorized and
applied to the Church as Israel as ceased to
be a nation with the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
Pros:
This perspective actually tends to have a
much higher view of the Old Testament than
dispensationalism in a Christian’s approach
to God. Reformed theology has historically
advocated that the moral law of the
Pentateuch applies to Christians today, and
are staunch critics of dispensationalists
dividing up the Bible between Israel and the
Church. Many accuse dispensationalists as
being directly responsible for the low
morality present in today’s Christian
Church, because of a wide dismissal of the
Old Testament.
Cons:
Advocates of replacement theology often
spiritualize texts of the Old Testament that
should be applied literally. Advocates of
replacement theology see no Biblical support
for the founding of the modern State of
Israel (although they would often advocate
that Israel does have a right to exist as a
modern-day democracy and/or as an ally of
the United States.)
Messianic Judaism largely advocates what can be
designated as a
Commonwealth of
Israel-Beta perspective regarding Israel. It considers
that God’s promises toward Israel have
remained in force in spite of how many
Jewish people have rejected Yeshua as
Messiah. This is evidenced in His
preservation of the Jewish people in the
Dispersion, and the terrible hardships that
they have had to endure like the pograms or
the Holocaust, and how the State of Israel
was miraculously founded in 1948. Messianic
Jews often see themselves as the “middle
men” who sit between Israel and the
Christian Church, being members of the
Church because of their faith in Yeshua, but
still retaining membership in Israel because
of their Jewishness. Gentile Christians are
a part of the Commonwealth of Israel,
meaning that the Church is connected to
Israel, but this is to be seen as a
commonwealth not unlike the British
Commonwealth of Nations, where Canadians and
Australians retain their political
sovereignty and their own national identity.
Pros:
The Commonwealth of Israel-Beta approach
present in Messianic Judaism has helped
expose many Christians to the Hebraic Roots
of their faith, and the rich faith heritage
they have in Judaism. It has rightly shown
that Jewish Believers can still be Jewish,
even if they profess a faith in Jesus, and
has also rightly combated a great deal of
Christian anti-Semitism. It has encouraged
today’s Church to support Israel and the
Jewish people, and be interested in the
message of things like the Passover.
Cons:
The Commonwealth of Israel-Beta approach
present in Messianic Judaism often operates
a two-tiered system of Jewish Believers
being superior to non-Jewish Believers.
Equality between all Believers is often not
something widely emphasized. Non-Jewish
Believers who are a part of Messianic Jewish
congregations are often limited in the
amount of ministry they receive. In some
extreme cases this has caused non-Jewish
Believers to convert to Judaism, leaving
Messiah Yeshua in the process.
Much of Messianic Judaism is lacking in its
overall Biblical Studies for a movement that
is now over forty years old.
The One Law sector of the independent Messianic
movement advocates what can be designated as
a
Commonwealth of Israel-Alpha approach toward Israel. While Messianic
Judaism has rightly emphasized that Jewish
Believers can still be Jewish, and has done
a significant degree of good, it is entirely
wrong to insist that non-Jewish Believers
cannot be their equals in the Messianic
movement. All of God’s Torah is for all of
His people (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22,
et. al.). Being a part of the Commonwealth
of Israel is not like being a New Zealander
whose monarch sits half way across the globe
in Great Britain, but is rather like being a
citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia or
the Commonwealth of Kentucky—a citizenship
that is the same for all who reside in the
Kingdom of God. The Commonwealth of Israel
is the ekklēsia. The Jewish people
are surely to be honored for their role as
the leaders of Israel, but not at the
exclusion of others.
Pros:
The Commonwealth of Israel-Alpha approach
present within the One Law sector of the
independent Messianic movement has rightly
emphasized that there are no two peoples of
God. All of God’s people are going to be
held to the same Torah standard. The
inequalities that often manifest in
Messianic Judaism are non-Biblical and deter
the mission of God in the world. No
non-Jewish Believer should have to “convert”
to partake of the richness of God’s Torah.
Cons:
The Commonwealth of Israel-Alpha approach,
because of its emphasis on God’s Torah, will
sometimes not emphasize the gospel message
of salvation enough. This has most
frequently manifested in calling itself the
“Torah movement,” perhaps over and against
the “Messianic movement.”
The One Law sub-movement, similar to Messianic
Judaism, is lacking in its overall Biblical
Studies. It also tends to attract a great
deal of theological fundamentalism and/or
harsh criticism toward the ills of the
Christian Church. The One Law sub-movement
often tends to take a very
hyper-conservative approach toward issues of
modernity and post-modernity, if not being
somewhat reactionary and isolationist.
The
Two-House movement has arisen over the past decade or so
to answer more specific questions as to why
many non-Jewish Believers have been led into
the Messianic movement. Is this happening
simply because Israel is supposed to be a
light to the nations? While we are all a
part of the Commonwealth of Israel, could
more be going on? The Two-House movement
advocates that a large number of non-Jewish
Believers (if not all) in today’s Messianic
movement are a part of returning Ephraim,
the scattered Northern Kingdom of Israel
taken into Assyrian captivity 2,700 years
ago. It advocates that we must look to the
prophecies of Israel’s restoration to fully
understand what the Father is doing in this
hour.
Pros:
The Two-House movement rightly asks the
larger Messianic world to address prophecies
like Ezekiel 37:15-28, and others, which
detail a greater restoration of Israel that
involves more than just the Jewish people.
It rightly asks the larger Messianic world
to consider why many non-Jewish Believers
are being led into Messianic congregations
and live a Torah lifestyle.
Cons:
The Two-House movement tends to place one’s
“Israelite identity” as being superior to
one’s salvation in Messiah Yeshua. Some
advocates have fallen for pseudo-history
that attempts to trace the ancestry of the
Ten Lost Tribes. The Two-House movement is
not as strong as it may think it is on
exegeting various prophecies of Israel’s
restoration, being guided more by
emotionalism and less by objectivity.
The Two-House movement has attracted a great
deal of theological fundamentalism, as well
as sensationalistic teachings that have
nothing to do with what the Biblical text
tells us of Israel’s restoration. It often
encourages a-traditional forms of Torah
observance that unfairly deride much Jewish
tradition. Because of these unfortunate
occurrences, most of Messianic Judaism stay
completely away from the subject matter.
What we are likely to see the emergence of in
the next decade in the Messianic world is
what could be termed
Egalitarian Messianic Congregations, a synthesis of the strengths those who have
preceded it. Its rallying cry will be verses
such as Ephesians 2:11-12; Galatians 3:28;
and Exodus 19:5-6. All Believers, whether
Jewish or non-Jewish, are a part of the
Commonwealth of Israel. All Believers,
regardless of ethnicity or gender, are equal
members of the Body of Messiah with an
unbelievable call upon their lives to serve
Him. An egalitarian Messianic faith will
recognize the special place of the Jewish
people within Israel (Matthew 23:2-3; Romans
3:2; 11:29), and appropriate the best of
halachah that the Messianic movement’s
Jewish pioneers brought us, while not
excluding non-Jewish Believers from teaching
or leadership. It will not be fearful of
addressing the Two-House issue, provided
that it is done within the framework of
unfulfilled prophecy and not some kind of
lost “identity.” It will also extend a much
greater position to women than has been seen
in any sector of the Messianic movement to
date. It will have an engaged Biblical
scholarship that respects the work of our
Jewish and Christian forebearers. It will
represent the major characteristics of
Chapter 2 in the development of the
Messianic movement.
Pros:
Equality for all Believers within the
Commonwealth of Israel will be emphasized.
Traditional forms of Torah observance will
be encouraged and balanced, avoiding the
extremes of either Karaitism or
ultra-Orthodox Judaism. Issues that have
been avoided by Messianics in their Biblical
Studies will no longer be avoided, and the
good things brought forward by Christianity
will not be disrespected with “Church
bashing” strongly discouraged and spoken
against. It will deal honestly with
questions asked by verses like Romans 9:6.
Cons:
Egalitarian Messianic Congregations will
face a great deal of opposition in getting
started. It will need to have a much more
professional clergy and leadership than has
been thusfar seen in the wider Messianic
world. It will need to be engaged with both
contemporary Biblical scholarship and
society at large. It will need to stand in
support of the Jewish people, but also
encourage interfaith dialogue with the
Church. It will be difficult for it to stand
steadfast in moderating some of the
extremism that has marked our larger faith
community. It will also face some harassment
for giving women a larger role within the
assembly.
Having considered these contemporary options concerning “Israel,”
where might you fit? Is what you
believe even listed? How might we refine
where we find ourselves today, in an effort to
be vastly improved tomorrow? Regardless of if
you agree or disagree with any or all of the
options available, we do have much on our plate
to discuss in the days ahead—so rather than just
assuming things about Israel, we can begin to
substantiate them with Biblical evidence. I look
forward to the discussions in the future, as
many of us do all share the goal of improving
ourselves in order to achieve God’s objectives!
J.K. McKee (B.A., University of Oklahoma; M.A., Asbury
Theological Seminary) is the editor of TNN Online (www.tnnonline.net)
and is a Messianic apologist. He is author of several books,
including: The New Testament Validates Torah, Torah In the
Balance, Volume I, and When Will the Messiah Return?.
He has also written many articles on the Two Houses of Israel
and Biblical theology, and is presently focusing on Messianic
commentaries on various books of the Bible.
|
