1) It’s
common for some Reformed amils to make the following two claims:
i) The church is the new
Israel
ii) Christ is the true Israel
But if you combine both
claims, that will yield a third claim:
iii) Christ is the true
church
Clearly, though, that shows
the need to qualify our usage. It doesn’t make much sense to say that Jesus
takes the place of the church.
1) There’s a serious
exegetical argument to be made for (i). However, that’s somewhat ambiguous,
depending on how we define the key terms.
2) Concerning (ii), this only
makes sense if we use it as a shorthand expression for corporate solidarity or
federal headship. Christ is the true Israel in the sense that Christ represents
Israel, not that Christ is identical with Israel.
By the same token, Christ
acts on behalf of his people (“the church”). To some degree he acts in their
stead, as their redeemer (i.e. vicarious atonement, penal substitution).
However, it’s not an
antithetical relationship, as if Jesus supplants the church.
We could also say that Christ is the true Israel in the sense that he fulfills the role that Israel was appointed for but failed to fulfill, e.g. being a blessing to all the nations of the earth. (Gen 22:17-18)
ReplyDeleteWhich would be the representative role.
DeleteErm... quite right. My mistake... *slinks into the shadows*
DeleteWell, an old duffer like me has to beat down the young turks who are rapidly gaining on him. Pretty soon I'll be left in the dust, with the other dinosaurs.
DeleteThe grammar of Gen. 22:17-18 is not an imperative. God is not telling Abraham to go be a blessing to all the earth. עֵ֕קֶב means as a consequence of, because of. It is a promise, without any conditions. Israel did not fail in the sense that she was called to go out and be a blessing to the earth. All the nations of the earth will be blessed in Christ. There is a day coming when this state will be realized. God is faithful. Romans 9-11 also restates this promise.
DeleteCouldn't (i) be grounded upon (ii) via the doctrine of believers' Union with Christ, averting the terminological issues you raise regarding exegetical arguments for (i)?
ReplyDeleteAnd couldn't dispensationalists make a parallel move by appealing to elect ethnic Jews in union with the Messiah?
DeleteI suppose so, though it would be a distinction without a difference to the covenant theologian. I guess that would just further illustrate the mutual exclusivity between the two hermeneutical paradigms.
Delete