PCA and Race: Reflective Review of "The Dangers of National Repentance"

An Essay by C.S. Lewis: The Dangers of National Repentance. [Found in God in the Dock]

C.S. Lewis did much of his best writing and reflection in the era during and after the Second World War. This essay ("The Dangers of National Repentance") was written in response to a drive to declare a national repentance and confession of sin in England for their part in guilt for the war.

A Summary of Lewis' thesis:

“They are ready to believe that England bears part of the guilt for the present war, and ready to admit their own share in the guilt of England.” 

But Lewis wonders: “What that share is, I do not find it easy to determine.” 

and goes on to ask: “Are they, perhaps repenting what they have in no sense done?”

A few more relevant lines:

“Men fail so often to repent their real sins that the occasional repentance of an imaginary sin might appear almost desireable.”

 But Lewis then goes on to illustrate the perils of doing so: "The young man who is called upon to repent of England's foreign policy is really being called upon to repent the acts of his neighbor.” 

 So that: “The first and fatal charm of national repentance is, therefore, the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing – but first of denouncing – the conduct of others.”

Lewis goes on to reflect that: “A group of such young penitents will say, 'Let us repent our national sins': what they mean is 'Let us attribute to our neighbor (even our Christian neighbor) in the Cabinet, whenever we disagree with him, every abominable motive that Satan can suggest to our fancy.”

This doesn't mean that Lewis rejects that there may be a need for national repentance, or that national repentance may need to be preached by the church ("It think it is" says Lewis).  Rather, Lewis goes on to say that national repentance may be necessary, but only with a discharge of “reluctance.” Just as one should not gain too much delight out of rebuking one's mother.

RELEVANCE:

To each of my readings, I hope to give some reflections to how this might be relevant to the current question before the PCA in regards to a denominational repentance. Though I would also recommend on this essay to read it for yourself, since the essay is short (5 pages). I think all PCA elders would gain something from reading it. My numbered reflections on Lewis' essay:

FIRST: Lewis in my opinion is right to warn of some of the self-righteous dangers of an endeavor of group repentance. Often this can be confessing the sins of one's neighbor, rather than your own sins. In those cases “we” really means “they.” Thus, there must be some reflection on the personal nature of such a confession. Is this the confession of a true acting collective whole, or the acting of one group or generation against another? Lewis warns of the violation of the Fifth Commandment if one is labeling something sin that is not, or just airing the sins of one's fathers unnecessarily. So two lessons from this point:

 1. One must be careful that in covenantal repentance, you are not confessing the sins of others, especially without their permission.

2. One must guard against passion for the sins of others, that distracts from one's confessing of your own sins.

SECOND: On the other hand, Lewis is also right to say there can be need of national repentance. Nothing in Lewis' essay, nor in the Scriptures, bars national repentance or what I would call "covenantal repentance" of a group body. If a group is constituted as a collective, and acts for the whole, then it commits acts for good or ill. Those acts should either be celebrated or repented of, respectively. Thus, there comes times when a group must repent of sinful acts and actions taken by the whole. The Lesson:

1. Covenantal repentance is valid, yet even when necessary must do so, it should have a tone of solemness and perhaps reluctance. We ought to honor our fathers, even if we must confess their and our iniquities as one body.

Covenant Infant Baptism

In thinking and reading again on Baptism lately, I remembered one of the better explanations and defenses of the biblical teaching on infant baptism (in a short bite-sized form) was Rev. Matthew Bradley's series on his blog on the "Sign of Baptism." I link below to the relevant blogs:

The Sign of the Covenant OR Why We Baptize Our Covenant Children (Introduction)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part One: One Covenant People of God)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Two: TheNature of the Community)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Three:The Sign)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Four: Our Children in the Covenant)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Five: The Sign Transformed)

The Sign of the Covenant (Part Six:Some Objections)

Five Smooth Stones: The Historical Case for Infant Baptism

Fulfillment Fridays: Seed of Abraham

God's Promise to Abraham

Genesis 17:1-9 -When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly." Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.



Christ as the fulfillment of the oath to Abraham

Luke 1:68-79 - "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."

Christ as the Seed of Abraham

Galatians 3:1-29 - O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain--if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith-- just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Putting my Bible Back Together

It is a cliche today to speak of the Bible as a coherent story, from Genesis to Revelation. But as I've said before, we may think of the Bible more through the lens of what is disunified rather than unified, especially between Old and New Testaments. The details of how we put the Bible together, however, is the real work of Biblical Theology. There have been multiple explanations that I have heard. What is the story about? Most will say "God" but we must be more specific than that when answering: What is the unifying narrative theme of the Bible?

Is it the Kingdom?

This is the first theme I heard when someone was trying to explain the Biblical Narrative. This sees the Bible as narrating the reign of God. This explanation, however, seems to not account for all the data. The goal of the preacher would be to declare God's Lordship, calling for obedience. But the Bible narrates so much disobedience and inability on the part of man. If the theme is God's Kingdom and God's giving man dominion, then most of the Bible is a narrative of the failure of that project.

"The movement of God towards man"

This answer was given by a professor I admire. I think this may be closer to the heart of the answer. However, it also seems to miss the narrative of man's flight from God. It is too vague.


History of Redemption

From Genesis 3 onward, man rebels. If God's kingdom was his only concern, he ought to have killed man in justice and started over with better subjects. If it is a general movement of God towards man, we can see this, but God was nearest man in Genesis. I think it is better to think of the narrative of the Bible as the history of redemption.

Genesis - man and God are in communion, but man sins.

Revelation - man is restored to an even better home and communion than the garden.

In between - the story of God's character revealed in love for His people through His Son ensues.

But how do we plug the details of the story into this narrative? A few books that have helped me:

Biblical Theology - Geerhardus Vos

Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (Essays) by Geerhardus Vos

Redemptive History and the New Testament by Herman Ridderbos

Paul: An Outline of His Theology by Herman Ridderbos

A History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards

The Faith of Moses

I was reading through the book of Hebrews again (it's my official favorite book of 2009) and came across a passage that upsets our categories:

Hebrews 11:23-26: By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.


Two things the passage says we may have trouble with:

1) In the second "by faith," Moses had faith in Christ...hundreds of years before Christ came bodily.

2) in the first "by faith," the faith talked about by which Moses was saved from Pharaoh, was not Moses' faith, but the faith of his parents.

No Commentary. Just Observation.

Reflection on Jesus and Children

Matthew 18:1-5: At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

19:13-15 - Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.

When the disciples ask a question about the greatest, Jesus uses a child as a model. Jesus uses a child to say “unless you turn/change/convert (all are valid translations of this word) and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Now Jesus did not mean act childish, the disciples were already good at this. “Who's the greatest?” already is a childish question. Paul says we grow up and put away childish things. It's almost as if it is like Jesus says: stop having the bad qualities of a child and get some of the good ones.

And Jesus gets a lot of mileage out of this example. The child offers an example for

1)Humility
2)How to welcome others
3)The responsibility we have to others (in the graveness of sin)

I once heard John Piper say that one of the traits he looks for in an elder is how they interact with children. Is the Christian Life a matter of one's individual piety and outward cleanliness? Or is it found in community and not the individual? For Piper, children were the ultimate test because they are needy, they can be annoying (as they were to the disciples later), and they can give you nothing back for the time you give them. They may, if an infant, sit there and look cute, but they will not return the favor. You don't take them out to lunch then they get the bill next time. A child may say thanks but then runs off to do his own thing.

So what I think Jesus is getting at in “becoming like one of these” is in rank and importance. It is not acting childish, though the innocent trust of the child is held up. It is humility, welcoming people like children who cannot give you something, and in not leading them into sin.

But as a side note before we get these traits in action in the rest of this chapter, I want to also show how this is a great argument for infant baptism. I'm serious. In other words, it is not entirely spiritualized that the kingdom community belongs to the children. In Matthew 19:13-15, the disciples may have only taken this as spiritual, and as people brought children to Jesus the disciples send them away. In Luke, it tells us that mothers carried babies to Jesus to touch. Children that could not come of their own accord, that had little knowledge of what was being done to them. The disciples did not see that children belonged in the new community that Jesus was making just as they belonged by circumcision in the community of Israel, as Jesus says that indeed they are members of the kingdom subject to his Kingship. Peter, I believe, gets it in Acts 2:38-39. When he invites the first Jews to new covenant obedience in receiving their Messiah and submitting to baptism, Peter says “for the promise is for you and your children.” Peter learned by this point children were included. Clement of Alexandria has a great line about this incident: “In Jesus' time mother brought their children to Jesus to touch, as they continue to do today in baptism.” There. My short case for infant baptism based on Matthew 18 and 19.

But I do think it is true. Having children as covenant members reminds us of the importance of community. We then see the dependence that child has on others. The community is not a social club where strong pious individuals, that are maintained by their individual personal piety come together. It is ground of the individual growing. Think of trees growing out of the building of the church, rather than trees growing out side of the church that stick a branch in the building. A child's dependence reminds us of our dependence. That a child is brought unable to help itself to have Christ touch reminds us of our helpless condition apart from being carried by the workings of the Spirit.

Matthew Henry on Covenant Children (Acts 2:39)

Matthew Henry on what Peter was telling the Jewish audience of his sermon, where he said "the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:39):

(3.) “Your children shall still have, as they have had, an interest in the covenant, and a title to the external seal of it. Come over to Christ, to receive those inestimable benefits; for the promise of the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, is to you and to your children,” Act_2:39. It was very express (Isa_44:3): I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed. And (Isa_59:21), My Spirit and my word shall not depart from thy seed, and thy seed's seed. When God took Abraham into covenant, he said, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed (Gen_17:7); and, accordingly, every Israelite had his son circumcised at eight days old.

Now it is proper for an Israelite, when he is by baptism to come into a new dispensation of this covenant, to ask, “What must be done with my children? Must they be thrown out, or taken in with me?”

“Taken in” (says Peter) “by all means; for the promise, that great promise of God's being to you a God, is as much to you and to your children now as ever it was.”

-Matthew Henry on Acts 2:39

John Piper is wrong (but N.T. Wright is too)

In 1997, John Piper published a book of devotional writings called “A Godward Life.” One of the entries was titled: “Did God Command a Man to Earn His Life? - Thoughts on the So-Called Covenant of Works.” Ultimately to this question: Did God command a man to earn his life: Piper answers “no.”

Piper writes, “It is true that God commanded Adam to obey him, and it is also true that failure to obey would result in death (Genesis 2:16-17)...But the question is this: what kind of obedience is required for the inheritance of life – the obedience of earning or the obedience of trusting?” (pg 171) Piper answers “trusting” which is synonmous with faith. (pg 171-172) To see it as earning, it is charged that this would be “legalistic.” (pg 172)

I believe Piper is wrong. Not that earning life (I'll even call it meriting life) would be legalistic. Indeed it would be. But Piper is wrong that God did not set that very system up. Adam was given a covenant agreement that if he obeyed, he would merit eternal life. It was legal and in accordance with justice, hence legalistic. Adam was told to earn life.

Piper can only see a disobedience of a lack of trust as what was evil about Adam's sin. “What made Adam's sin so evil was that God had shown him unmerited favor and offered himself to Adam as an Everlasting Father to be trusted in all his council for Adam's good.” (pg 172) It must be admitted that to be given a covenant or even initial life is unmerited. Adam did nothing before he was created to merit being created. Neither did Adam do anything before being given a covenant to merit being given a covenant. But that is NOT the question. The question is the nature of the agreement set up by God. The agreement was not anti-meritorious. On the contrary, it was a meritocracy, merit-pay. “Do this, then you get this.” The payment may have been out of propotion. That's not the point. It was payment: wages for work. Grace in salvation was not needed for sin was not yet a problem. Grace as salvific answers the problem of sin, but before sin, Adam was to keep God's commandments, and in this probationary period merit eternal life. Adam did not do this by faith or trust alone, but by works. Faith after Adam is trusting Christ's works, but Adam's works, not yet defiled by sin, needed no substitute.

What Piper rejected in his 1997 work is what I believe makes his response against Wright and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) not as strong as it needs to be: both NPP and Piper have no functional doctrine of a covenant of works. (*Piper has acknowledged that the Covenant of Works may have validity, but it has not become functional in his theology as far as I have seen)

Piper asks an odd rhetorical question to try to prove the absurdity of a covenant of works as being failed by Adam and fulfilled by Jesus: "Should we think of the Son of God relating to his Father as a workman earning wages? Are we to think of the role of the 'second Adam' as earning what the 'first Adam' failed to earn? I his role not rather to glorify the trustworthiness of his Father, which Adam so terribly dishonored?"

My answer to the first two questions is Yes. To the final question: Yes and no. Not rather, but also.

How is Jesus the second Adam? Does Jesus merely trust God better than Adam? Or does Jesus merit eternal life where Adam failed? Jesus legalistically earns what we cannot not. Paul seems to have this contrast between Adam and Christ in view in Romans 5:12-21. Paul had previously set up just such an "earning" and meriting situation in Romans 2: "[God] will render to each one according to his works" (2:6) and "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (2:13) Paul tells us the way to righteousness is work. But then no one does this righteousness (Romans 3:10-12). So instead salvation must be given by a gift (3:24) and "one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Romans 3:28). This is only possible because of the life and death of Christ (5:10) whom we may be joined to, as the choice becomes union with Adam or Union with Christ (5:12-21). By evil work, Adam brought condemnation to all humanity, Christ by righteous obedient work brings new life. (5:18)

Christ obeys were Adam sinned. Christ earns what Adam did not. By virtue of our union with Christ, that righteousness is imputed to us. It is "legalistic" for Christ, not for us. This is part of why we call imputation forensic, meaning legal. Adam was given a covenant that was a chance to merit life by obedience. Adam failed. From then on, no man could merit life for he was tainted by sin. Christ was given that same covenant and succeeded. Christ was perfect not merely to be a pure substitute in sacrifice, but also in order to obey the covenant of works on our behalf and merit His righteous obedience to the covenant of works imputed/credited to us by faith not works. We need both to have our wages paid (the wages of sin being death) and also to have eternal, resurrection life merited for us by Christ's righteous keeping of the law/covenant of works. This is the ministry of the gospel then:

2 Cor 5:20-21 - "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Our choice then is: who are we united to? Are we in Adam or in Christ? (1 Cor 15:22) Are we united to Adam's meriting of death, or the second Adam's meriting of life. Do we try to fulfill the covenant of works on our own, or do we plead the covenant obedience of Christ? This is the only ground by which we can talk about imputing Christ's righteousness.

Meredith Kline went so far as to say,

“imputation is obviously not compatible with the position that disavows the works principle. On that position, a declaration of justification and conveyance of eschatological blessings in consequence of a successful probation, whether of Adam or Christ, would be an exercise of grace, not of simple justice. But if there is no meritorious accomplishment possible, the rationale of the imputation arrangement in general becomes obscure, if the whole point of it is not in fact lost. In the case of the gospel, if there is no meritorious achievement of active obedience on the part of Christ to be imputed to the elect, then this cardinal doctrine of soteric justification in its historic orthodox form must be abandoned.”

I think Kline is right, though he was not talking specifically about the NPP or Piper. If Piper wants to affirm an imputation of Christ's righteousness, he needs to revisit and clearly affirm the idea of a covenant of works with Adam based on merit, for the sake of Christ's merit. Piper's case against Wright is defective, as they both improperly understand the covenant of works which is at the heart of the old Reformation perspective (for the Reformed as a covenant of works and as the Lutherans understand the law). Piper may certainly make his case based on his own theology, but it should not be seen as the definitive “old perspective.”

Horton vs Wright

In reading the debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright on Justification, though thankful for Piper's work, I have been disappointed with aspects of Piper's approach. Piper leans more "New Covenantal" rather than classical covenantal in his approach to the concept of covenant and imputation, which oddly means that there are times that I agree with Wright over Piper, even though I agree with Piper's conclusion and not Wright's.

Michael Horton, however, has taken up the task of critiquing N.T. Wright's view of justification (which denies a covenant of works and imputation) from a classical covenantal perspective. The series is very helpful:
[UPDATE: Get the entire review in one place here]

Part 1: Introduction

Part 2: Unity of the Covenant in justification

Part 3: Justification and God's People

Part 4: Justification and Eschatology & Imputation

Part 5: Justification and Imputation (cont.)

Part 6: Justification and the Works of the Law
 
Part 7: Is Wright Biblical or reading in his Systematics in Paul?

Part 8: Justification and Romans

Part 9: Works of the Law: Soteriology and Ecclesiology

Part 10: Conclusion

Three signs

Explaning what a "sign of the covenant" is can be difficult and confusing. After a storm in Dallas, I saw a rainbow and began to think about the similarity of the rainbow as a sign along with circumcision and baptism. The similarities may help us understand what a sign is.

The Rainbow: In Genesis 9, God makes a covenant with Noah. God promises never to destroy the earth by water again, and gives Noah a sign. This sign points to God' promises, (Gen 9:14-16) not anything in Noah. The purpose of the sing for Noah is as a reminder of God's promises.

Circumcision: In Genesis 17, after God has promised many things to Abraham. To assure Abraham of His promises, God gives him the sign of circumcision. Paul tells us that circumcision is a "sign of the righteousness that comes by faith" (Rom 4:11). The sign is not of what Abraham does, but of God's righteousness to keep his word and promises to Abraham. Not Abraham's righteousness, for "the Lord is our righeousness" (Jer 23:6). Not Abraham's faith, but the righteousness that comes by means of faith.

Baptism: The image of Baptism is throughout the Bible. God promises many things to His people, including: his ingrafting into Christ (Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27), of regeneration (Tit 3:5), of remission of sins (Mar 1:4), and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:3, Rom 6:4). Like circumcision, baptism points to the promises of God, a righteousness that comes by faith, it does not point to faith but the righteousness.

What do these three signs together tell us of signs in God's covenant? The Rainbow points to the promises of God. Circumcision points to the promises of God. Baptism points to the promises of God. So the next time we reflect on our baptism, see the baptism of another, or think of what to say to someone about their baptism, let us remember that baptism is not about the person or what they can or did or do, but about God, what He did in Christ for them and does by the Spirit in them and the promises He makes to the believer, promises of His righteousness to be received by faith.

Respectfully disagreeing.

“A major alternative for analyzing the structure of biblical history is offered by a school of evangelical thought more popularly known as ‘dispensationalism.’ Dispensationalism has set itself over against covenant theology as a means for grasping the architectonic structure of biblical revelation.

As the dispensationalist perspective is being evaluated, it should not be forgotten that covenant theologians and dispensationalists stand side by side in affirming the essentials of the Christian faith. Very often these two groups within Christendom stand alone in opposition to the inroads of modernism, neo-evangelicalism, and emotionalism. Covenant theologians and dispensationalists should hold in the highest regard the scholarly and evangelical productivity of one another. It may be hoped that continuing interchange may be based on love and respect.”

-O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants pg 201-202.

Hymn: Looking Forward to the Promised Land

If one accepts the conclusions of my last post on the Land of Israel, then one can sing this hymn with hope. Such a hymn is based on a Historical Redemptive means of reading the Bible. The promised Land of Abraham, and the blessing given to Abraham's descendants, which Scripture defines as those who believe (Romans 4:11, Gal 3:9) finds full form in the promise of the restoration of all things, a renewal and improvement of the original Garden. This hymn was written by Samuel Stennett, who among his quirks came from a Seven-Day Baptist family (I don't really get how that works either). But Stennett penned this hymn that became especially popular among Methodists and African-Americans who identified with the theme of exhile in a land, while looking forward to a better day of the Promised Land. [Modern versions are found on Jars of Clay's Redemption Songs and Indelible Grace 2]

On Jordan's Stormy Banks by Samuel Stennett

On Jordan’s stormy banks I stand,
And cast a wishful eye
To Canaan’s fair and happy land,
Where my possessions lie.

Refrain

I am bound for the promised land,
I am bound for the promised land;
Oh who will come and go with me?
I am bound for the promised land.

O the transporting, rapturous scene,
That rises to my sight!
Sweet fields arrayed in living green,
And rivers of delight!

Refrain

There generous fruits that never fail,
On trees immortal grow;
There rocks and hills, and brooks and vales,
With milk and honey flow.

Refrain

O’er all those wide extended plains
Shines one eternal day;
There God the Son forever reigns,
And scatters night away.

Refrain

No chilling winds or poisonous breath
Can reach that healthful shore;
Sickness and sorrow, pain and death,
Are felt and feared no more.

Refrain

When I shall reach that happy place,
I’ll be forever blest,
For I shall see my Father’s face,
And in His bosom rest.

Refrain

Filled with delight my raptured soul
Would here no longer stay;
Though Jordan’s waves around me roll,
Fearless I’d launch away.

Refrain

Is Modern Israel the Israel of Biblical Prophecy? (Part 5): The Land of Promise

The theme of Land in the Bible doesn’t begin in Genesis 15, but in the first few chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 is the account of all that God created. Of all of creation God puts man in a portion of it:

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

When man falls, God takes what had been his gift, and curses it.

Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
Gen 3:18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.

Though at first man was to eat of the tree of life, now his food comes by pain and is of a lower quality. But what does this have to do with Abraham? Understanding the promise of Abraham requires understanding the narrative flow of Scripture. Abraham is chapter 12, not 1, of Genesis. Abraham comes in after the story has commenced. Abraham is an element in the History of Redemption.

God has already begun his program of redemption in the promise of the seed, sometimes called the proto-evangelium (first gospel) in Genesis 3:15:

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

The seed of the woman (Christ) will crush the head of the serpent (Satan). As a result of this promise, Adam names his wife “Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” (Gen 3:20) From Eve, Christ will come to bring life, and “life to the fullest.”

Yet the story of redemption tells, not just a story of soul-saving, but the redemption of all creation. Paul tells us in Romans that “the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” (Rom 8:22) Man not only awaits redemption, so does creation.

Back to Abraham. God’s promise to Abraham includes a large tract of land, larger than he would even have use of at that point:

“from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites." (Gen 15:18b-21)

Some people interpret the geography as similar to modern day Israel, while you can also find some maps of what some other people estimate that land to be. What is the meaning of this land promised to Israel? How do we interpret this? If we say it is something other than the literal land in the Middle East, are we not “spiritualizing” the text, and treating the Scriptures loosely?

Many of these questions go to the heart of how we read the Old Testament. Many want a very literal reading, so much so that Genesis 3:15, that the church has always interpreted as the proto-evangelium, is really just explaining why snakes and people don’t get along. So too, the land promise made by God finds full fulfillment in the political possession of the land mentioned in Genesis 15 by an entity with the name of Israel. If this is the way we are to read the Old Testament, this is a reasonable interpretation.

In reading the Bible, the only infallible guide to interpreting the Bible is the Bible itself. Many places in the Bible, it does exactly that: interprets itself. Sometimes in the same passage, such as the Gospel authors giving an interpretation to the parables of Jesus. Sometimes in different books, such as Malachi (1:3) or Romans (chapter 9) interpreting the story of Esau and Jacob. Indeed, to understand the Scriptures, the Scriptures themselves instruct us.

The New Testament tells us that many things in the Old Testament, such as festivals, “are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Col 2:17). What is written in the Old Testament is to be understood in the context of Christ. The writer of Hebrews concurs, writing:

Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities

The “true form” of the shadow in the Old is found in the New. The most “literal” and surest form of reality is what is revealed to us in Christ and the New Testament as God unfolds his plan in the narrative of the redemption of His creation. With this in mind, what was the land a shadow of? What part of redemption does this promise point to? The writer of Hebrews stops in the middle of his hall of fame of faith in Hebrews 11 to reflect on the land promise and explain it to us:

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.
Heb 11:15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.
Heb 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

The author of Hebrews writes of the hope of the land as a desire for a better country, a heavenly one, a city that God has prepared. The true form of the land is found in the story arch from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. The promise to Abraham is the restoration of the garden, and its improvement. The story begins with the lost Paradise of the Garden continues in the plan of restoration of God from Genesis 3 onward to Abraham's promise which looks to the restoration of all things in Revelation. When we look at Revelation, we see John describe to us:

Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and
showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

I don’t know of any more obvious referent the author of Hebrews could mean by “a heavenly city” that God prepared than a holy city coming down straight from heaven! The old Jerusalem was indeed a fulfillment, but according to Hebrews, the fullest fulfillment is the New Jerusalem.

My friend Matt Bradley has a wonderful exercise in Scripture (listen to his lesson introducing Historical Redemptive reading here). Open the first few chapters of Genesis and compare them to Revelation. The parallels are striking:

We find the tree of life:

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life

A river:

Gen 2:10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden,

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life,

And the light of Day:

Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

Rev 22:5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

But as you can see, the end is not only a restoration of the Garden, but there is improvement over the Garden. The Garden had two types of tree (good and bad), the city only has the tree of life. The Garden had night and day, but the city only has day. The Garden had a serpent, but the serpent is defeated and in the city: “nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.” (Rev 21:27)

God’s land promise, we see shadowed the promise of full restoration, a restoration and improvement over the lost Garden. Christ, in His covenant obedience, has been given all things (1 Cor 15:27), and in turn, Christ declares "Behold, I am making all things new." (Rev 21:5) The inheritance Christ receives is the whole earth, the land of promise and beyond, remade, so that:

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.

The history of redemption begins in Genesis 3:15, and in Abraham we are given a shadow of a true form, that lets us look forward to the ultimate fulfillment of the promise in the new creation when:

Rev 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

Is Modern Israel the Israel of Biblical Prophecy? (Part 4): Who is Israel today? God's People Israel.

If modern ethnic Jews are not the true People Israel, then who is? The covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17 was declared to be an everlasting covenant. For God to resend such a covenant would show fault with God. One can also not have a covenant without members. So who is the covenant with?

As already stated, the recipients of the promise are those who share the faith of Abraham. Christ was the one ultimately faithful to God, and mediator of the covenant. The faith of Abraham included a faith in God and his promised seed, Christ the mediator. This would mean that true Israel are the people on earth today that have such a faith, and they are those in the true church. True Israel today is Christ's Church.

Calling the Church Israel can raise certain objections. Charles Ryrie, a Revised Dispensationalist, polemically declared “the church does not rob Israel of her blessings.” Is saying the church is Israel robbing Israel of her blessing? First, lets look at how Scripture talks about Israel and the church:

PAUL IN EPHESIANS 2

Saying the Church is Israel is not just a matter of inference. Paul writing to Gentiles in Ephesus wrote:

Ephesians 2:12 - Remember you were once without Christ, alienated from the citizenship of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. [author’s translation]

Paul then makes a pivot,

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. [ESV]

The “near” and “far off” were a common Rabbinic way of referring to Jews and Gentiles. Peter uses the same terminology in speaking to a Jewish audience in Acts 2:38-39, saying the message of Christ is for “you” (Jews) and “those who are far off,” namely the Gentiles. Paul here uses the far off image to illustrate its elimination. Those who were far off, now are brought near - a term for Israel. Paul explains how this is accomplished:

Eph 2:14-15 For he [Christ] himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, [ESV]

The unique nature of the Mosaic Israelites has been taken away. As we saw, this unique quality was not ethnicity, but Paul explains it as the law of commandments, that most commentators see as the ceremonial law of Moses. This allows Paul to make a statement to the Gentiles that was implied in 2:13:

Ephesians 2:19 - You are no longer strangers and foreigners, but are fellow citizens with the other saints in God’s household. [Author’s translation]

Notice the language parallel to 2:12:

2:12 - Remember you were once without Christ, alienated from the citizenship of Israel,

2:19 - You are no longer strangers and foreigners (aliens), but are fellow citizens with the other saints in God's household.

The phrase in 2:12 is “τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραη`λ ” translated “the citizenship of Israel.” The root of the word “πολιτείας” or “politeias” (transliterated in English) is “polis,” where we get the English word politics. Compare that to 2:19’s word: “συμπολῖται” or “sumpolitai” translated “fellow citizens.” In the common Koine Greek usage, the term denotes individuals who share citizenry or are fellow citizens of a given nation or city. Paul teaches in Ephesians 2, once the Gentiles were alienated and separated from the citizenship of Israel by the Law, which was an offense to outsiders. Now that Christ has fulfilled the law and broken down that wall, now Gentiles are free, with ethnic Jews, without submitting to the Mosaic Law, to be fellow citizens of Israel. One way of describing the entrance into Christ’s church, for Paul, is citizenship in Israel.

The church as Israel explains the consistent application of the standing and appellations of Israel to the church, such as Peter telling Christians they are “a holy nation, a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9) echoing the same description of OT Israel in Ex 19:6. Paul in Ephesians 5 calls the church the Bride of Christ, echoing the same description of Israel as Bride in Ezk 16:4-14 and Hosea. Rather than concluding that God is a polygomist, we see that the Bride is one and the same. Israel is the Bride, the Church is the Bride, because the Church is Israel.

ROBBING ISRAEL OF BLESSING?

Does this mean, as Ryrie declared, that the church is robbing Israel of the blessing promised to her? The truth is that every single Christian, dispensational, covenantal and those Christians that are totally clueless that this is even a debate, takes promises given to Israel and appropriates them as promises to them, Christians in the church.

A simple example exists in the practice of taking Old Testament promises as comfort to a Christian. If Israel is not the church, then a Christian has no business appropriating promises like:

Jer 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. [ESV]

Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. [KJV]

Jos 1:9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go." [ESV]

All of these are comforts to Israel. Do you appropriate these words as words of comfort? You should, for if you are a Christian, then you are of Israel.

Beyond merely taking devotional comfort from God’s promises, there is a very serious and grave reason for seeing the church as Israel. If we are not the house of Israel, we are lost and without hope. (I am not saying dispensationalists say this, but that their reading has the following conclusion if applied consistently) During the Last Supper Christ took the wine and offered it to the disciples saying: "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20). When we partake of communion, we declare that we are recipients of God's forgiveness through Christ's blood and partakers of the new covenant. Where did this language of new covenant come from? Every Jew familiar with Scripture would have Jeremiah 31 ringing in their eyes when the words “new covenant” were spoken, the long awaited fulfillment of prophecy. But if we are not Israel, forgiveness offered in the cup is not for us, for Jeremiah 31 says, "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” (Jer 31:31) The covenant is made with Israel, and if we are not Israel, then we are not partakers of Christ’s new covenant. The church then does not rob Israel of her blessings, for the church is Israel, and so cannot rob itself.

This is not to say dispensationalists deny the gospel or something, but that the implications of dispensationalism’s divorce of Israel and the church cannot be consistently maintained and applied without confusing their own distinction of Israel and the Church and clouding the clarity of Scripture’s presentation of the gospel. The ingrafting of Gentiles into Israel makes us all the more thankful that Christ has made provision by fulfilling the law and bringing us who were far off near, bringing us who were separated from the promise of the new covenant into the citizenship of Israel, heirs to the promise.

To clarify, this also does not mean that the church replaced Israel. Replacement theology is entirely different than covenant theology. Replacement theology does not see the church as Israel, instead it agrees with classic dispensationalism that Israel and the church are separate peoples, but sees one as discarded and one as replacement. The church is the story of a great number joining Israel, not replacing her. As Abraham’s covenant is an everlasting covenant, it cannot be discarded without invalidating the Word of God. As we have explored that Scripture does not present heredity as the essential element, but faith, then Israel is the people who share the faith of Abraham, not his genes. Indeed before Hebrews 11 lists the great saints of the Old Testament, it declares:

Heb 11:1-2 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. [ESV]

As was in the Old, so is in the New. By faith do people of the New receive their commendation, too. By faith, the People of God receive the promise of the covenant.

But does this mean that Christians have some sort of right to the land of Canaan? Isn't that the heart of the Abrahamic covenant? Next, we will look at the land promise in Part 5.

Is Modern Israel the Israel of Biblical Prophecy? (Part 3): Who is Israel today? God's man Israel.

Have you ever looked into how a New Testament author used an Old Testament passage with sear confusion? Such was my reaction when going through Matthew with someone reputed to know Scripture well. We came to Matt 2:15 speaking of Jesus coming out of Egypt after some time in his childhood, which reads:

“This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’"

The passage was confusing, since in the Old Testament, this was not a passage of prophecy about the Messiah in Scripture, but you can read it here in Hosea in context:

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Hosea 11:2 The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.

How does Matthew maintain that a statement about Israel was fulfilled by Christ? When I asked, the instructor punted by pointing out that Matthew was divinely inspired and can do what he wants with the text. Of course, that does not answer the question, especially if the Gospels were written to an audience that would identify that indeed this was a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1-2.

When reading on my own, I came to find out that most people do not punt on the use by Matthew 2:15 of Hosea 11:1-2. Instead, in reading two camps of scholars that disagreed sharply on the issue of the New Testament use of the Old, (Beale and Carson versus Enns), I was shocked to see they both agreed on why Matthew said Hosea was fulfilled here: Christ is Israel.

Hosea is talking about Israel, whom God loved and gave commandments. Israel, however, was constantly disobedient and breaking God’s Law. Matthew’s thesis throughout his gospel is that Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the Law. Christ obeys where Israel disobeyed. Christ fulfills what Israel could not. Christ is the perfect Israel.

The New Testament appropriates other descriptions of Israel as Christ, such as "my servant" in Matt 12:15-18, which in Isaiah 42 and the context is talking about Israel. Such also is the practice of many of the Messianic Psalms. For instance, Christ quotes Psalm 22 on the cross: “My God, why have you forsaken me!” But this is contrasted to verse 3 that identifies God as the object of praise of Israel in the midst of abandonment. Israel was forsaken and yet glorifying God in the Psalm, and Christ did the same on the cross.

As the perfect Israel, Christ is heir to the promises of Abraham first and foremost. This is Paul’s case in Galatians 3:16:

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.”

Israel is the heir of the promises of God, and Christ is the ultimate mediator of the promise of Abraham for He is the ultimate heir. Christ has been given all things promised to Abraham. He therefore is the ultimate heir of the promises of Abraham. In the Galatians argument, we can also see the importance of Paul’s favorite language for salvation: being “in Christ.” The mystical union (as Calvin called it) is required for Paul to end Galatians 3 with this assurace for those united with Christ:

Gal 3:26,29 - for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith...And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

A people of God find their identity in Christ, for the Father rewards the Son, and in the Son are the promises given. To be in Christ is to share in His status as heir.

Who then are these people that are in Christ and share his inheritance? That is what we will look at in Part 4.

Is Modern Israel the Israel of Biblical Prophecy? (Part 2): Who receives the promises of Abraham?

"[the return of modern Israel to their land] constitutes a preparation for the end of the age, the setting for the coming of the Lord for His church, and the fulfillment of Israel's prophetic destiny.”
-Classical Dispensationalist John Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy p. 26.

“Judged on biblical grounds, the nation today does not pass divine muster as a nation living in covenant obedience to God."
-Classical Dispensationalist Charles Dyer, Dean of Moody Bible Institute

Two dispensationalists, as we see here, can even disagree about whether the nation of Israel today is the recipient of covenant promise by its existence. How can this be? The problem comes down to how any particular reader of the Bible, be they classical, revised, progressive dispensationalist or covenantal, understands the nature of divine promise. Each needs to answer the question: What is the basis of the fulfillment of promise to Israel? And this question really has two elements:

1) What places one in the party of the promise?

2) What stipulation must be met while in the party to receive the promise?

To Question 1, (What places one in the party of the promise?) there are two main answers proposed. The first position for what places one in the party of Israel is hereditary. This answer sees the promise given to Israel on the basis of the ethnic pedigree. Such a view looks at the interactions between Abraham and God in Genesis 12-17 as an unconditional promise (thus, having no stipulation as an answer to the second question). For instance, an advocate for hereditary party would see Genesis 17:7 as a straight forward confirmation of their view:

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.

God’s promise is thereby a decree that He will fulfill his promises to the ethnic descendents of Abraham. John Walvoord, asserting that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional states “the final restoration of Israel does not rest on their obedience but on the grace of God. A nation does not deserve God’s blessings will receive them much as Christian, who do not deserve God’s blessings…are showered with His blessings.” (Major Bible Prophecies, 64). God then sets aside a people with an unconditional covenant.

The problems of hereditary fulfillment

A view of God’s promises to Abraham based solely on heredity have major problems in the unfolding of the Scriptures. The Scriptures explicitly state that the sole criteria for inheriting the promise is NOT hereditary. If the criteria for receiving the promise is dependent on heredity, one much ask: Did Ishmael inherit the promises of Abraham?

Gen 17:20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.
Gen 17:21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year."

One might rightly point out that God was narrowing the promise within the covenant at this point and the descendants of both Abraham and Sarah are in view and so really what we are concerned with is the descendants of Isaac, since Ishmael was born of Hagar and Abraham. However, the same problem occurs: Did Esau (and the Edomites) inherit the promises of the Abrahamic covenant? Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau, but both did not receive the promises based merely on their heredity.

God does explicitly state that he is setting up a “nation” to himself. But it is clear the ONLY criteria for blessing this nation is clearly not hereditary pedigree. If one can be a descendant of Abraham, but not heir to the promises of Abraham, there must be other criteria or conditions. Indeed, God could not be more explicit in stating indeed there are more requirements to be included in God’s covenant people:

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his
foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

There is an element of responsibility to “keep the covenant” so as not to be cut off from the people of promise, and being cut off from the people of promise means being cut off from the promise. Paul helps us in Romans 9:6 when he says literally: “Not all Israel is of Israel” or in the ESV: “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Heredity does not guarantee the blessing of the promise.

But is heredity a necessary factor? It seems evident that those born to covenant-keeping Israelites were included in this covenant, provided they did not break it themselves. So is heredity a necessary factor?

Non-Jews as Israel

One might say it may be proved heredity may be proved to not be sufficient, but is it not a part of the requirement? The question then, really is, can a non-ethnic Jew become a member of the covenant nation?

First we may take the famous examples of the non-Jews in the line of Jesus such as Rahab the Canaanite prostitute, or Ruth the Moabite. Part of the promise to Abraham by Yahweh was “I will be your God” and “you will be My people.” Ruth appropriates this in Ruth 1:16, stating: “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.”

Does Ruth have the right as a Moabite to come into the covenant nation, or is this presumption? Ruth indeed does have this right. In fact, foreigners not marrying a Jew even have this right as we see in Exodus, when it speaks of the covenant people’s exclusive meal the Passover:

Exo 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

WHO IS ISRAEL THEN?

So here we see one can be a member of the covenant nation of Israel without Abrahamic heredity. What then makes one a member of the covenant nation? Mere circumcision? Let’s consider Jeremiah 9:25-26:

Jer 9:25 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh--
Jer 9:26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart."

Circumcision is a requirement to keep the covenant, and true circumcision is not merely outward but a matter of the heart. What does this “circumcision of the heart” mean? Keeping the covenant can also be called righteousness. We remember the famous verse of how Abraham received his righteousness: “he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” (Gen 15:6) To be in the covenant community, one must be righteous, which means faith. One must share the faith of Abraham to share his blessings. Membership in the covenant community is not merely outward: heredity and circumcision, but a matter of faith. Paul restates this in Romans:

Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

So why does God mention those of physical birth when those not of physical birth can be Israel and physical birth does not guarantee receiving the promise? Because God is making a nation for Himself and this is not a mere ethnic nation, but a faithful nation. Those in this nation are those who share the faith of Abraham, and their children. God’s covenant people, therefore are believers and their children, children who are required to adopt the faith of their parents in order not to be cut off from the covenant nation. Those who share the faith of Abraham are given the grave responsibility of passing on the faith to their physical descendents, lest they be cut off from the promise.

It is not that Israel always understood that being heirs to the promise was a matter of faith and not heredity. Such is the reality Jesus confronts in John 8:

Joh 8:39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you
were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did,
Joh 8:40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.
Joh 8:41 You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God."
Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.

Covenant-keeping faith determines who is the seed of Abraham. Faith in God and his promise, not merely of land, but of redemption in the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, Genesis 17, and John 8, who stands in flesh before the mere hereditary descendants.

Indeed “ in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” (Gal 3:14)

To inherit the promise required faith. And inheriting the promise is still a matter of faith, namely in the Messiah:

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Faith in God and His promise, Who is Christ, is the stipulation for inheritance of the promise of Abraham. A covenant must be kept for a promise to be given. So we see that the Scriptures present the covenant promises to Abraham based on faith and covenant keeping, not on mere heredity.

The question of modern Israel then becomes, not can they trace their ancestory back to Abraham, but does the nation of Israel have the faith of Abraham? Modern Judaism claims to be the faith of Abraham, but viewing Israel as faithful to Judaism has two problems. First, only 15% of modern Israel is religiously Jewish. Second, and more important, the faith of Abraham was in the promise of “the seed.” So we must also ask: What is the response of modern Israel to the Messiah? The answer to that question is the answer to our question. Modern Israel has broken the covenant of faith by rejecting the seed of promise and by refusing to be obedient to baptism to keep the covenant (Col 2:12, Acts 2:38-39). We are left with no other answer than that modern Israel is not the Israel of Abraham’s promise.

Next, we will look at who is Israel.