IT’S NOT HERE YET, BUT IT’S COMING (A Look at the Day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12)

What a person believes determines how they behave. There is the homicide bomber who believes that he is pleasing his god by blowing himself up and taking the lives of many others as well. Or the one who puts powerful, but destructive, drugs into her body because she believes that present pleasure far outweighs any future consequences. And then there are those who generously give because they believe the biblical admonition that giving is better than receiving. Everyone believes things which in turn gives direction to both attitudes and behaviors.

In the young church at Thessalonica believers were fearful because of something they believed. They had become convinced that the “day of the Lord” had begun and they had entered the time of great tribulation. They had listened to false prophets, likely a persuasive teacher as well as a pseudo-letter claiming to be from the Apostle Paul, with the result that many believed they were in the tribulation. Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 to assure them that their belief was not true and that they were to live confidently and not fearfully.

This passage in 2 Thessalonians has some difficult matters connected with it, however, in this brief study we want to highlight certain pivotal points in order to understand what it is teaching. We will approach this by looking at several key issues.

Defining the “Day of the Lord”. The “day of the Lord” is a concept that is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament. It refers to a time of special divine intervention in this world (e.g. Joel 2, 3; Zechariah 12-14; Zephaniah 3; Matt. 24:29). It includes three events: that of the 7 years tribulation period, the Second Coming of Christ to the earth and the Messianic (millennial) kingdom. Since the “day of the Lord” would begin with the terrible time of tribulation, this is what the Thessalonian believers had come to believe they were in. Because of their persecutions, some were promoting this false idea that they were in the “day of the Lord.”

The Sequence of Events in the “Day of the Lord”. As an apostle, Paul could have just said: “no, you are not in the “day of the Lord”. And even though he had apostolic authority, there were those who challenged his authority. However, he also had the authority of the prophets of the O.T. which would carry a great deal of weight. So instead of just saying “no, you are not in it”, he pointed out that an event clearly taught in the O.T. as the starting point of the “day of the Lord” had not taken place. And if it had not taken place, then obviously the “day of the Lord” could not have started. Daniel 9:27 teaches that the tribulation period begins with the signing of a treaty between the Antichrist (the leader of a western nation) and the leaders of Israel. This event not only starts the seven year period of time but also reveals the Antichrist. But no such event had occurred which meant the “day of the Lord” could not have begun. Later the N.T. would add the point that at the outset of the tribulation period will be THE apostasy (the massive turning from God’s truth on the part of the “church”). This apostasy is closely connected to the unveiling of the Antichrist (the “man of lawlessness”.) Paul mentions this end of the age defection from the truth of God by those allegedly part of the church and John would give details later on. (Revelation 17)

The Event Prior to the “Day of the Lord” and the Rapture Event. But there is more. In 2:6-7 these believers are reminded that presently sin’s full blown manifestation is being contained. That will change, however, when the Holy Spirit (2:7) ceases His ministry of the restraining of sin. (Note that the Spirit Himself is not “taken out” of the world; as it is impossible for an omnipresent God to be removed from anywhere. Also, the reality is that the Spirit must be present on the earth since no one could be saved without the working of the Spirit in conviction and regeneration. Multitudes will be saved during the tribulation). It is the ministry of the restraint of sin that is removed. There is a clear sequence that must here be noted in 2:7-9. The ministry of restraining sin is removed and then Satan’s man is revealed as the Antichrist (at the covenant signing).

At this point it should be observed that in history the Spirit has used God ordained agencies to restrain sin in the world; namely the family, human government and the Church. Human government in the end time will be totally corrupted by Satan’s forces and the family is likely a shadow of what God intended (being badly degraded in much of the world). The church is the great agency of restraining sin and the removal of the Church out of the world in these end times will have a breathtaking impact on the world. The Church, with all of its imperfections and flaws, still retards evil in this world. The removal of restraint is best understood as the removal of the church at the Rapture event. The Spirit indwells the Church (1 Cor. 3:16-17 where “you” is plural and is speaking of the church body and not the individual believer. The individual believers is indwelt as well according to 1 Cor. 6:19). The removal of restraint takes place before the unveiling of the Antichrist (which starts the tribulation). Again, this points to the church’s removal prior to the tribulation. This affirms Paul’s teaching that the church has no part in the time of tribulation.

And the statement of 2:1 must be noted. Here Paul bases this discussion on our “gathering together to Him” which is the rapture event. He is calling the Thessalonian believers back to his first letter where he twice emphasized that believers in Jesus Christ are “delivered out of the wrath to come” (1:10), and that “God has not destined us for wrath” (5:9). These are powerful statements revealing the exempting of Christians from the future wrath of God; that is, the tribulation aspect of the “day of the Lord.” So Paul based his discussion of the “day of the Lord” on his previously given instruction on the rapture event; an event which removes believers out of the world prior to the “day of the Lord”.

As Paul winds down his discussion in 2:13-14, he encourages them that they have been chosen by God “for salvation” (which basically means “deliverance”). In light of the context of future events, the “salvation” is most likely not looking at regeneration/new birth but at our “deliverance” from these terrible days of tribulation; reinforcing what he already said in his first letter to the Thessalonians.

The Events Within the “Day of the Lord”. So the Apostle taught that the sequence is: the removal of restraint followed by the apostasy/unveiling of the man of sin. Paul then adds a couple of other truths about this Antichrist. He will take his place in the temple, and by so doing, declare himself to be deity. This is Daniel’s famous “abomination of desolation” that Jesus referred to as the great end time sign in Matthew 24:15 which occurs at the half way point of the seven year tribulation. Also, Paul informed his readers that this blasphemy is short lived as the Lord will bring Antichrist to his end at the Second Coming. But between his unveiling and his termination, the Antichrist will have extraordinary powers by which he will deceive multitudes of people during the tribulation period. Many will believe him and this belief will dictate how they live their lives during those terrible days.

Concluding Thoughts. So the believers at Thessalonica have been informed by Paul that some were believing that which was not true. There was no reason to live in fear and worry. They were not in the “day of the Lord.”

What we believe about future events also plays an important role in how we behave. If we live in a genuine anticipation of the Lord’s return and our immediate appearance before Him at the judgment seat, then we will purify our lives, says 1 John 2:28-3:3. We will live more focused lives for Christ, deal aggressively with sin and live in anticipation of seeing Him. However, if we are like the slave that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 25 who believed that “my lord delays his coming”, then we will be like that slave. He is described as one that lived badly and very sinfully. We must not think and thus believe “my Lord delays His coming.”

The Savior’s Second Coming is spoken of much more than was His first coming to the earth. We celebrate that coming each December because we know He came. His Second Coming is even “more certain” as it is spoken of many more times. Our real beliefs determine our behaviors.

IS THE CHURCH REALLY THE “NEW ISRAEL”? (Part 5)

When my children were little tikes they loved watching “Sesame Street” and particularly liked the “which of these does not belong” segment. In that segment, several objects were seen on the TV screen with one of them being different than the rest. For example, there might be three triangles and one square. My children (being unusually brilliant) usually figured out pretty quickly that the square did not belong with the triangles.

In the theological world, some things are just not the same and “do not belong” together. The church of Jesus Christ and the nation of Israel are not the same, and in spite of attempts by Replacement Theologians (RT) to equate them, they are not the same entity. RT does not have any NT passage which teaches that the church has replaced national Israel. They only can come up with passages that “imply” or “suggest” the position they are attempting to establish. The absence of any NT discussion of the church replacing Israel is significant because God spent 2000 years (from the days of Abraham and Moses) declaring that Israel was His “chosen people”; His covenant nation. The OT scriptures constantly reinforce the truth that God and national Israel were in a binding covenant relationship; a covenant that the Faithful God would fulfill. In light of the hundreds of references to the unique place of national Israel in the plan and purposes of God, we would rightly expect God to give us a chapter or two in the NT (or maybe a whole letter) explaining to us that Israel has been set aside and replaced by the church. No such NT passage exists which ought to alert everyone to the very real probability that no such replacement has taken place. Some things “do not belong” together. .

In our previous four studies, the focus was on certain scriptures that are used to promote RT, and it was seen that none of them do so. In this study, we want to give some other biblical evidences as to why these two are not the same things; that is, why the church is not a continuation of OT Israel. .

(1) A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT. The nation of Israel began with the calling of Abraham (around 2100 BC) while the church began on the “Day of Pentecost” (around 33 AD). The church did not and could not exist before the Ascension of Jesus Christ back into heaven after His resurrection. Ephesians 1:20-23 says,

“…which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and GAVE HIM AS HEAD OVER ALL THINGS TO THE CHURCH, WHICH IS HIS BODY, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”

The Body of Christ did not begin to form until after the Ascension and could not, therefore, have been in existence in some other form in 2100 BC. Furthermore, it could not have been formed prior to Pentecost because that is the day, in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit’s ministry of “baptism” began. And the only way that a believing person gets into the Body of Christ is through Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 1:5). No Spirit baptism, no Body/no church. This underscores another important reality and that is there are no unbelievers in the church, the Body of Christ, but there were many unbelievers in OT Israel. They are not the same. .

To try to present the church as a newer form of OT Israel does not align well with the distinctive starting points of the two entities; they really are not the same. It is like trying to say the square has corners like the triangle and, therefore, it really is one though just a bit different. .

(2) THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. One of the Apostle Paul’s great contributions to the doctrine of the church is found in his letter to the Ephesians. Among other things, he instructs believers that the church is (1) a mystery and (2) that it is one new man. These points focus on the unique character of the church as compared to national Israel. .

(1) A Mystery. In Ephesians 3:1-6, Paul reveals a truth not previously found in the OT; that is, that believing gentiles would be equal with believing Jews in the Body. The truth is not that gentiles would be saved, since that was clearly spoken about in various OT scriptures. But equality of the two is different. This informs us that the makeup of the Body and the makeup of Israel is different; thus, they are not the same.

(2) One New Man. It is in Ephesians 2:14-15 that the Apostle teaches that believing Jews and believing gentiles were made “into one” group, and that the two are now “one new man.” This one new man is an entirely new entity. It is not a gentile nation nor is it the nation of Israel. The church is not a continuation of Israel. This Body is something distinct from Israel. .

It must be noted here that RT love to use this passage in Ephesians to prove that gentiles who are now “brought near” and are “fellow citizens” are seen as being incorporated into Israel. And they go on to declare that because gentiles are now part of Israel, there is no distinct future for national Israel. .

Aside from the fact that this contradicts the distinct place of the Abrahamic covenant in God’s program (see Part 2, August 2015), it also assumes that being a participant in something automatically means equality within that entity. Believing gentiles are “partakers” (Romans 11) in the Abrahamic covenant but not the fulfillers of it. It was made between God and Israel. Furthermore, if Paul had wanted to say that gentiles were part of Israel, he could have done so. He does not. It is just as important to observe what Paul does not say as well as what he does say. The “one new man” is a soteriological organism which is entered by faith alone in Christ alone. Soteriological oneness does not equate with oneness in God’s past or future dealings. It does not mean that gentiles are now Israelites. Believing gentiles share with believing Israelites in many of God’s promises but this hardly means that they become Israelites. The truth of gentile salvation was seen from the very beginning when God told Abraham that in him “all the nations would be blessed” (Gen 12:3; 18:18). Most likely, Paul would have said gentiles were “into” Israel and not “with” Israel, if he were teaching that God’s promises to national Israel has been aside and given to the church. He is simply demonstrating the present equality of Jews and gentiles in the entity called the “church”. He is not setting aside God’s covenant commitments, nor is he denying a future for the nation of Israel. .

(3) INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DIFFERENCES. Without spending much time on this point, we can say that there are external differences between Israel and the church. For example, Israel had an army; required the payment of taxes (tithes); and had national boundaries. These are not true of the church. Internally there are also marked differences. In Israel there were only some who were priests (the tribe of Levi), while all believers are priests in the church. Another example is that the nation of Israel operated under a very different covenant than the church. In the church, all are believers but that is not the case in Israel. .

The church and Israel are different and Replacement theology simply has no definitive NT passage which states that the church is the “new Israel” or that the church has replaced Israel. Therefore, they are forced to see “implications” or “suggestions” as they attempt to establish their position. Non-replacement theology has the bulk of the OT as well as the powerful discussion of the Apostle Paul in Romans 9-11. God has not set Israel aside and He has not made the church the “new” Israel.

IS THE CHURCH REALLY THE “NEW ISRAEL”? (Part 4)

All Scripture is inspired and important but there are times when some scriptures rise to a place of greater importance because a certain subject is the focus of attention. In our current discussion, we are addressing the subject of the church replacing Israel in God’s program. And as we saw in our last study, Galatians 6:16, Romans 9:6 and 11:26 take on greater importance than usual when the matter of “church-Israel” is the subject. Another important scripture in the discussion is that of Matthew 21:43. This is often used by Replacement Theology (RT) to try and establish its’ position. In this article, we want to view several scriptures used by RT but will highlight Matthew 21:43.

Matthew 21:43

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” (NASB)

This verse is generally used by RT to show that Jesus is permanently removing the kingdom from national Israel.

The Context of Matthew 21:43. The earthly ministry of Jesus was now entering the final week, the “passion week”. A year earlier, in Matthew 12, the nation’s leaders had declared openly that Jesus had not come from God, but was really an agent of the Devil. With this terrible, willful sin of rejection by Israel’s leaders, Jesus turned from the nation. Things changed dramatically in Jesus’ ministry, and He now talked of His death, but also introduced the church, declaring that “I will build My church” (Matt. 16:18). And during the last year of His ministry, Jesus and the religious leaders were periodically engaged in contentious debates. Such is the situation in Matthew 21 which records events on Tuesday of the last week of Jesus’ ministry. The discussion begins at 21:23. The View of Replacement Theology. RT sees this as the moment when Jesus permanently removed the kingdom from Israel and gave it to the church. The “nation” mentioned in 21:43 is said to be the church. The following quote reflects this idea as it is found in RT literature.

“As a matter of fact, Israel having rejected its king, the kingdom of God would therefore be taken from it and given to a nation bearing its appropriate fruits (Matt. 21:43). For this eventuality Jesus made provision by the establishment of His church, the new Israel and the people of God.” (Zorn, Christ Triumphant, 30)

The term “church”, of course, is not actually found in the verse but is the interpretation of the author, based primarily on his theological position.

The View of Non-Replacement Theology.

In fairness to everyone, all interpreters face the problem of dealing with something that is prophetic in nature. The kingdom will be taken away and it will be given to someone else. So all must look past this statement to see what lies down the road.

Several points need to be made. First, the Lord Jesus is speaking to the Jewish leadership; specifically the chief priests, elders and Pharisees. These leaders had effectively pronounced judgment on themselves (21:41, 45). Jesus’ rhetoric is aimed at them (as it would be in Matthew 23) which explains the harshness of His statements. However, the leaders did in fact represent the nation and the people of the nation of Israel. The nation stood condemned. Those who had seen and heard Jesus were again being informed that they have lost out on God’s gracious offer of the very soon arrival of the Messiah’s kingdom. But the statement doesn’t automatically mean what RT says it means. First, it does not say specifically that Israel for all time will lose the kingdom. Second, it does not say specifically that it is the church that would get the kingdom of Messiah. Better is the view that it is the present generation of Israelites (the ones rejecting Jesus) that will lose out. But aren’t we doing the same things as RT; that is, letting our theological framework interpret an unclear passage? The difference is that Jesus again deals with this very matter two days later on Thursday afternoon. And since we all believe in the progress of revelation, where new revelation adds to, clarifies, or expands previous revelation (does not contradict it), then His statements given 48 hours later do help clarify. In Matthew 23, Jesus again denounces the religious leaders and now makes it clear that judgment is falling on that generation (23:36). But the next verses are very important because it is revealed by Jesus that Christ’s rejection of Israel, and Israel’s rejection of Christ, is not permanent and eternal. In 23:39, the word “until” (ews) coupled with the following statement of messianic recognition, clearly affirms that Jesus will come again once the nation is repentant, recognizing Him as their Messiah. So we conclude that Matthew 21:43 is indeed looking at a change but it is from an unrighteous present generation in Israel to a righteous future generation in Israel (the kind describe by Romans 11:25-27; Zech. 12 and 13; Ezekiel 36:24-28, etc). The verse is, therefore, not describing an ethnic change from Israel to gentiles. Michael Vlach notes that RT must prove that Matthew 21:43 rules “out the possibility that a future nation of Israel will experience the fulfillment of the kingdom. But Matt. 21:43 does not do this.” (Vlach, Church Replaced Israel? 143)

1 Peter 2:9-10 In this passage, the Apostle Peter uses a number of OT designations as he speaks about the privileged position of believers in the church. RT generally sees this as Peter identifying the church as a new Israel. Peter says that the church is a “chosen people” (which emphasizes our common life because of God’s initiative in selecting us); a “royal priesthood” (which points to our privilege of ruling and serving); a “holy nation” (which focuses on us being separate from the nations of the world and a unique community of people); and a “people belonging to God” (which emphasizes that we are God’s private possession). All these terms have an OT background which would have special meaning to Jews. And it should be noted that the recipients of Peter’s letter were most likely believing Jews (not denying there could have been a few gentiles in the mix), which would be something an apostle to the Jews would do!

It important to observe that nowhere does Peter declare the church to be the new Israel. There is continuity between Israel and the church in that we, as recipients of His election and grace, are chosen by God to do His work in the world right now. We are assigned by God to be His witness in the world to unbelievers, just as Israel was given that task in the OT. Hiebert has a good summary of Peter’s statements.

“It does not naturally follow from the parallels between Israel and the church that Peter believed that the church has permanently replaced Israel, and that the latter will not again enjoy a separate existence under the favor of God. Israel’s future is inseparably connected with it acceptance by faith of the returning Messiah (Zech. 12:10-14:11; Acts 3:19-26; Rom. 11:25-27). D.E. Hiebert, 1 Peter, 147

Michael Vlach adds that there are times in the Scriptures when “Israel imagery” is applied to non-Israelites without these becoming Israelites; as in the case of Egypt in Isaiah 19:24-25 (Vlach, 149). So without Peter saying “church = Israel” or that the church has now permanently replaced Israel, the proof that RT is looking for is not found here.

Galatians 3:29 Here Paul refers to gentile believers as the “seed of Abraham” which is used by RT to prove that gentiles are now spiritual Jews. But this phrase does not mean that believing gentiles in the church now fulfill the promises given in the covenants to national Israel. There are, in fact, several ways that “seed” of Abraham is used. It is used of the physical descendants of Abraham (remember that Abraham had a number of sons); it is used of Jewish believers; and it is used (as in Galatians) of gentile believers (who spiritual father is Abraham the believer). (For an excellent discussion of the “seed of Abraham”, see Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s, “Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, 126 ff.) He notes that RT would have a much better case if the subject were the “seed of Jacob/Israel.” While each of these scriptures could have so much more written on them, it does become clear that RT cannot come up with any definitive, objective evidence for its’ position. At best, things are “implied” or “suggested”, which does not meet the standard of clear exposition. And such exposition is required if the supposed great change from Israel to church did occur in the plan of God. More on this in upcoming articles.

IS THE CHURCH REALLY THE “NEW ISRAEL”? (Part 3)

As we walk down the airport concourse to the departure gates, we note that the planes are fairly close together. The plane at Gate 14 seems to be just a few yards away from the plane at Gate 15. However, just because they appear to be close together, no traveler thinks that it really doesn’t make any difference which plane you board. Soon after take-off the difference would be apparent. If you want some time at the beach then the flight to San Diego at Gate 14 would be the better choice than the flight to Topeka at Gate 15. It does indeed make a huge difference which plane you get on.

To many Christians in today’s church, it makes little difference if one boards the theological plane called Replacement Theology (RT) or if the other one which sees Israel and the Church as distinct is boarded. They are, after all, so close together. But, of course, they really are not. And the theological plane you board will take you to very different prophetic destinations.

We have observed thus far that there are two basic approaches in the matter of Israel-Church; those that see a distinction between Israel and the Church in God’s program and those that don’t (RT). In our last study, we saw that the unconditional, unfulfilled Abrahamic covenant is a formidable challenge to the legitimacy of RT. We also noted that to prove their point that the Church has replaced Israel, RT must show that the NT scriptures teach that “church” and “Israel” are used interchangeably; or in the words of RT William Cox (in our previous study), “as a matter of scriptural fact, these terms are used interchangeably….” The following is a brief discussion of the scriptures most often used by RT.

Galatians 6:16 Almost all in RT will reference Galatians 6:16 in their quest to show Israel and the Church are used interchangeably, and therefore, that the Church replaces Israel in God’s program. The verse reads as follows:

“And those who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”

This verse is part of the conclusion to the Apostle Paul’s letter. He has argued carefully that the Law cannot justify a person. He has explained that both Jews and gentiles are justified by faith alone in Christ alone (Gal. 2:16). He then made it clear that we began our new life in Christ by the working of the Holy Spirit and we are sanctified by the same Holy Spirit’s work (3:2-3). In other words, we are both justified and sanctified by faith. When he speaks of “those who walk by this rule” he is speaking about believing Jews and believing gentiles who have come to understand this great truth. He then pronounces a blessing on these believing Jews and believing gentiles.

The View of Replacement Theology. RT holds that Paul has been emphasizing the unity of Jews and gentiles, and that it is, therefore, unlikely that he would end his letter with a statement that would separate them. Their argument hinges on the word “and” (kai). They state that this word can be used in explicative sense; in other words, it should be translated “even.” Thus Paul would be pronouncing a blessing on “them” (gentile believers) “even upon the Israel of God.” The explicative use of “kai” is like an equals sign; gentile believers = the Israel of God.

The View of Non-Replacement Theology. The normal and usual use of “kai” is that of a copulative sense (“and”). By far, this is the usual way the word is used in the NT. The explicative sense (“even”), though possible, is unusual. So there should be something in the text which would compel one to this secondary usage. But there is nothing to lead the expositor away from the natural copulative sense. So, as a number of grammarians have noted, making “kai” to mean “even” is forced and unnatural. Blessing is pronounced on believing gentiles and on believing Jews.

As we noted, Galatians builds a strong case for justification and sanctification by faith. But it also contains a harsh rebuttal of Judaizers who wanted to include Law keeping as part of the equation. The Apostle commends Jews who have come to understand “this rule” (2:16), and singles them out for blessing. Gentiles who did not struggle with keeping the Mosaic Law (though they had their own struggles) are also blessed because they have come to accept God’s righteousness on the basis of faith alone. But the believing Jews who “walk by this rule” are seen as the true Israel of God.

It is more than strange (if RT is correct) that Paul would introduce such as seismic theological shift (that the church is now the true/new Israel) in the conclusion to a letter with no explanation. Surely, if he had wanted to reveal such a profound change, he would have detailed it in the body of this letter where theological analysis took place. And it makes little sense that he would introduce such a major doctrinal change based on the secondary use of “kai” used in a rather casual way.

It must be noted that since this is the key verse to prove a “church = Israel” change, it reveals a very weak foundation. The grammar and the context are resolutely against RT. And to compound the problem for RT, they have little else to work with.

Romans 9:6 The View of Replacement Theology. This verse is used to try and demonstrate that Paul is using “Israel” in a way that goes beyond the normal ethnic boundaries.

“But it is not as though the Word of God has failed, for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.”

The point made is that ethnic Israel is seen as distinct from “spiritual” Israel; implying that all who are believers are “Israel”, including the Church. But a closer inspection shows that this verse offers no support for RT.

The View of Non-Replacement Theology. In Romans 9:1-5, the Apostle is giving the eight prerogatives given to national Israel, who are Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh” in 9:3. The term “Israel” is used ten times (in Romans 9-11) in this unique section of Romans devoted to the past, present and future of Israel. It is used only of ethnic Israel. Paul’s contrast in 9:6 is simply between believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. There is no mention of the church or of gentiles in 9:1-6. In fact, there is no doubt that “Israel” is defined by the statement that these are the Apostle’s “kinsmen according to the flesh.”

Romans 11:26-29

“and thus all Israel shall be saved; just as it is written, ‘the Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.’ And this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins. From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the Fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

The View of Replacement Theology. Some RT believe that “all Israel” refers to the church, but the consistent use of “Israel” in Romans 9-11 as an ethnic group speaks loudly against this. Other RT see this as a reference to Jews being saved throughout history, but this is unlikely since Romans 11 is looking into the future salvation at the end times. Furthermore, the fact that a relatively few Jews have come to faith in each generation doesn’t fit with the great doxology at the end nor with the need for this inspired discussion. Still other RT concede that this is speaking of the national salvation of Israel in the future, but do not concede that the future restoration of national Israel is included.

The View of Non-Replacement Theology. It is vital to see that Paul ties in Israel’s future redemption with God’s covenant promises to the “fathers.” God is faithful to all His covenant promises. It will start with bringing Israel into the New Covenant. And then, as Jesus observed in Matthew 23:39, a redeemed national Israel will then be ready for Messiah’s coming and ruling in His kingdom as well as Israel’s restoration to the Land that was given to them. Israel means Israel.

While our study has of necessity been brief, a deeper study of these verses will validate these conclusions. These verses simply do not support the position of RT. And, as we will see in our upcoming studies, there are important lines of evidence and important scriptures which show that national Israel does have a future in the plan of God. Israel will indeed be restored back to their former position because of the faithfulness and loyal love of their covenant keeping God. We need to board the right plane.

IS THE CHURCH REALLY THE “NEW ISRAEL”? (Part 2)

The answer to the above question is definitely not in the same category as “how many angels can dance on a pin head?” Now perhaps angels might be interested in the dancing question, but answering the question in the title is highly significant in the study of biblical prophecy. Believing that the Church of Jesus Christ is the “new Israel” will lead a person down one prophetic path. If, however, one believes that the Church and Israel are distinct entities in God’s plan and program, then a very different path will be traveled. It does make a difference what you believe on this matter.

In our last study it was observed that there are two basic views concerning the Church and its relationship to Israel. Replacement Theology (RT) believes that God is done with national Israel and that the Church has replaced Israel in doing God’s work in the world. Israelites may be saved today (and there might even be “national salvation”) but Israel will not be restored to their former place of prominence. The second view is simply that the Church and Israel are distinct and the church has not replaced Israel. And while Israel has been temporarily set aside because of their disobedience and unbelief, God will fulfill His promises to ethnic Israel and restore them in the future. This second view is held by dispensational theologians, though this second view is not exclusively a dispensational position.

In concluding the first study, it was noted that RT must demonstrate that the New Testament writers teach: (1) that God’s many promises made to Abraham and his descendants will not be fulfilled to Abraham and his descendants; (2) that God clearly declares in the NT that the Church has replaced Israel; and (3) that after 1500 years of “Israel” meaning a specific ethnic group that the term has now been redefined by scripture.

At this point we need to begin to demonstrate why the Church is not the “new Israel”, and in the process of doing so deal with the verses presented by RT to support their position.

#1 – The Biblical Covenants God Made With Israel The Abrahamic covenant, and the covenants which flow out of it, were made with a specific people, the nation of Israel. This is a central issue in this discussion. (Note that a much more detailed discussion can be found in Dr. Couch’s book “Messianic Systematic Theology of the OT”, and my book “Understanding End Times Prophecy”). Genesis 12-50 carefully records that this covenant was made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob. This Abrahamic covenant was everlasting (that is, it would last at least as long as the present universe) and it was unconditional (that is, it would depend on God alone for its fulfillment). In Genesis 15, God graciously helped Abraham’s weakened faith by legally ratifying the covenant with animal sacrifices. This point is critical because once and for all God declared that He would fulfill all its provisions to Abraham and his descendants. The Apostle Paul made a powerful point in Galatians 3:15 when he observes that no one can change a ratified covenant; one that is legally binding. The provisions of the covenant cannot be changed and this includes the parties of the covenant. In other words, no one can now change the covenant parties from God and Abraham’s descendants to God and the Church. Here is Paul’s statement.

“Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations; even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises (ie. an unconditional covenant) were spoken to Abraham and to his seed.”

The three covenants which flowed out of the Abrahamic covenant, developing in greater detail the seed thoughts of the Abrahamic covenants are: the Land covenant (a specific land area given to Israel), the Davidic covenant (the rule of David’s descendant over Israel and the nations of the earth), and the New covenant (dealing with the matter of sin and spiritual deliverance). Now, most of the provisions of these covenant have not been fulfilled. But God committed Himself on oath to fulfill them. To change the parties of the covenants from Israel to the Church goes against God’s covenant promises to Abraham; against the point that ratified covenants cannot be changed; and against the testimony of Moses, the OT prophets and NT Apostles that Israel has a future.

The presence of the everlasting, unfulfilled OT covenants requires that they be fulfilled to the same people who are the party to the covenant. That party is Israel, the descendants from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). To substitute the Church for Israel simply goes against so much of what the Bible says.

#2 – The Use of the Term “Israel” It is the view of RT that the term “Israel” and the term “church” are used interchangeably by the New Testament writers. This, of course, is critical to their position. The following quote fairly represents the view, though others might frame it in a slightly different way.

“God’s people were known in the OT as “Israel”. The same people, in the NT, are known as “the church.” As a matter of scriptural fact, these terms are used interchangeably; the church is referred to as “Israel” (Gal. 6:16) while the OT remnant is referred to as “the church” (Acts 7:38). (Wm. Cox, Amillennialism Today, p. 46)

But we must ask if this really is a “scriptural fact” or not. This will require a look at several key NT verses. But first, we should observe the general use of the term “Israel” in the Scriptures.

“Israel” is used over 2,000 times in the OT. And there, it is always used of national Israel; a specific ethnic group descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. A Philistine is never called an Israelite. A Canaanite is never called an Israelite. An Egyptian is never called an Israelite. While it is true that Ruth the Moabite believed in Jehovah and became a part of the nation, she is never called an Israelite. She is a wonderful example of the fact that God was and is interested in bringing gentiles to Himself. But it is a “scriptural fact” that “Israel” in the OT is never used of anyone aside from those who are the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. The NT use of “Israel” is built on the OT use.

In the NT, the term “Israel” is used 73 times. There is little doubt that about 70 of the 73 times the word is used of national Israel. (For example, when the ministry of John the Baptist is discussed, Luke 1:80 says that “he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel”; and there can be no real question what he meant by “Israel”). So overwhelmingly, the term “Israel” as used in the NT is consistent with its 2,000 uses in the OT. And again, we would make the point that if the meaning “Israel” has now changed (after 1500 years of consistent usage) it would be expected and required that a clear and detailed explanation would be given. But the question now focuses on the few references used by RT to establish their position that it a “scriptural fact” that the terms “Israel” and “church” are used interchangeably. So we will take a look in our next study at their key verse Galatians 6:16, along with Romans 9:6 and Romans 11:26.

RT is paddling against a very strong current biblically and theologically. The unconditional, unfulfilled Abrahamic covenant along with the consistent use of the term “Israel” are strong forces against the view of RT. And we will argue that no amount of paddling will bring them to the place where the church is the “new Israel.”

IS THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST THE NEW ISRAEL? A CRITICAL ISSUE IN PROPHETIC STUDIES (Part 1)

A realtor will tell you that the three most important factors in selling a property are (1) its location, (2) its location and (3) its location. If you have watched HGTV you know this is very true. And a theologian might tell you that the three most important factors in arriving at good theology are (1) definition of terms, (2) definition of terms and (3) definition of terms. When biblical and theological terms are not carefully defined, then one can pretty well expect that the result will be theological confusion. This holds true in any area of theological study including that of biblical prophecy. How a person defines Israel and the Church will have a profound effect on one’s understanding of biblical prophecy. This is an extremely important subject and one that needs careful analysis. Clarity here will bring clarity throughout biblical prophecy. This will be the first article in a series on this significant matter.

The Two Basic Views. We all recognize that theologians will hold many views on any given subject, and that would be true on the “Israel-Church” issue. But for the purpose of these brief discussions, the two main positions will be set forth.

#1 – ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH ARE NOT THE SAME This view, commonly associated with dispensationalism (though not exclusive to dispensationalism), concludes that Israel is a unique nation chosen by God to be the channel of bringing about the restoration of everything that was lost in Eden. Israel is a specific ethnic group, descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (Israel), which is united by a covenant relationship with God. This covenant is everlasting and it is unconditional (depending on God alone for final fulfillment), but it is largely unfulfilled. It will be fulfilled completely in the future with the same people (ethnic Israel) with whom it was made.

God’s choice of Israel to accomplish His great purposes in restoration and reconciliation is a major biblical and theological matter. But two points should be made. First, Israel’s election never meant that God became disinterested in the gentiles. God intended to bring the Savior into the world to save the world through Israel, and that He did. From the first giving of the covenant, God’s intention to save gentiles was seen. Second, Israel’s status as the elect nation did not mean that every individual Israelite would receive spiritual salvation. National election and individual election are two different matters. All Israelites must also place personal faith in Messiah Jesus.

The Church is distinct from national Israel. When that generation of Israelites that witnessed the coming of Jesus Messiah turned away in unbelief, God temporarily set Israel aside and raised up the Church (that body of believing Jews and believing gentiles) for an undetermined period of time to do God’s will and work in this world. This was not something revealed in the Old Testament which is why the Apostle Paul referred to the Church as a “mystery.” When God’s purposes for the Church are completed, God will restore Israel to their former place but not because of Israel’s goodness. God’s covenant with Israel was unconditional and He will do what He promised. God will restore national Israel during the “Seventieth Week of Daniel” (aka the Tribulation) which will lead to total covenant fulfillment. Evidences for making a clear distinction between the Church and Israel will be presented later on. To remove any suspense, the distinction between Israel and the Church is the position taken by the author in these articles.

#2 – THE CHURCH IS THE NEW ISRAEL This view is commonly called “Replacement Theology.” This view holds that Israel’s sin and unbelief connected with their rejection of Jesus Messiah caused God to set aside national Israel completely and permanently and replace it with the Church. The promises given to Israel in the Old Testament have been transferred over to the Church. The view is sometimes called “supersessionism” because the Church has superceded Israel. This position is reflected by these theologians.

“What further statement could be needed in order for us to say with assurance that church has now become the true Israel of God and will receive all the blessings promised to Israel in the Old Testament.” (W. Grudem, “Systematic Theology”. 863) “The Old Testament records two kinds of promises which God made to national Israel: national promises and spiritual promises….The spiritual promises are still being fulfilled through the church today. Israel’s national promises all have been either fulfilled or invalidated because of unbelief.”(W. Cox, Amillennialism Today, 83)

It needs to be noted that there are differing views within “Replacement Theology” on God’s present attitude towards Israel. There are two basic views.

(1) PUNITIVE REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY. This view states that because of Israel’s rejection of Jesus, God, in wrath, abrogated His covenant with them and is punishing them. For centuries this was the position of the Roman Catholic Church as well as some of the Reformers. The harsh, punitive attitude reflected in the Jews being “Christ killers” flows from this form of Replacement Theology.

(2) ECONOMIC REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY. Two key events in the 20th century has softened the above attitude towards the Jews: first, the Holocaust, and, second, the establishment of the state of Israel. And, it is likely, that the influence of Dispensational Theology has also played a role in the evangelical church’s attitudes towards Israel. Economic Replacement Theology basically says that Israel’s role as the people of God simply expired with the coming of Jesus as God then transferred their position to the church.

Both of these two views deny a restoration of national Israel. The first view holds that there is no future of any kind for the Jews. The second view acknowledges a future salvation for Israel but denies a future restoration of Israel (that is, Israel will have no special role in the future in fulfilling God’s work and will).

For Replacement Theology (RT) to be true then there are three points that must be demonstrated from the Scriptures. First, they must show that God’s many eternal, unconditional promises made to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob will not be fulfilled to them. There needs to be clear New Testament evidence that all of those commitments made by God in the Old Testament have been set aside by God Himself. The writers of the NT must declare that this is the case. Second, there must be a clear discussion by the Apostles that the Church has now replaced Israel in God’s program. This is such an important issue that it would be necessary to have the matter discussed clearly and forcefully. There ought to be a number of passages which detail this monumental shift from Israel to the Church. And third, it must be shown that the term “Israel” which had just one meaning (an ethnic people) for some 1500 years now has a new meaning. Again, this would require clear, unmistakable declarations by the NT writers. God was so very clear about the identification of this people Israel. From the days of Moses to those of Nehemiah, “Israel” had just one meaning. It is difficult to believe that God would change the meaning of “Israel” without letting all of us know, by giving a clear and detailed discussion of the issue. On the other hand, we would expect God to reinforce His view of Israel through the pens of NT writers. And we do have such a clear, unmistakable discussion of that very thing in Romans 9-11.

As we will see in upcoming articles, RT is an exegetically weak theological position. The Scriptures commonly used by RT are inadequate to support this theological view. Clear exegesis, and not a resorting to analogies and metaphors, is what is required.

NOTE: The author has found that Michael J. Vlach’s book “Has the Church Replaced Israel?” (B & H Publishing Group) is an excellent book, and one that the reader will find valuable when dealing with this important subject. It is highly recommended.

THE UNITED STATES: DOES IT PLAY A ROLE IN BIBLICAL PROPHECY?

People living in Nicaragua or Nigeria are probably not too interested in the answer to this question. It likely has not entered their minds. However, believers living in America often wonder if our country does have a place in end time prophecy. It is hard for us to imagine that such a powerful nation would be totally absent from prophecy. Now, the quick answer to the above question is, of course, “no, the USA is not mentioned in biblical prophecy.” But if we should be living in the days immediately preceding the Tribulation, then it is very likely that the United States does find a place in the scenario of events.

There has been recent attempts by some Bible teachers suggesting that “Babylon” of the Book of Revelation is really the United States of America. The evidence presented for such a determination is not strong exegetically. And, it seems to me, that there are numerous points found in Revelation 17 and 18 which do not align well with such an interpretation and, in fact, speak against it. But if the USA is not “Babylon”, is it not part of end time prophecy? We cannot declare with certainty that such is the case. But there is a chapter in Daniel which could shed some light on the matter.

Daniel’s Vision of the Four Beasts
THE SETTING. Daniel received this vision fifty years after King Nebuchadnezzar had received his vision of the “great metallic statue” (in Daniel 2). In that vision, God revealed that there would be four human empires which would be followed by the forever kingdom of God. Those kingdoms would succeed one another and the final kingdom would be destroyed totally by God Himself, who would then establish the kingdom of the Stone (the kingdom of Messiah). Daniel’s vision of the four beasts (chapter 7) reveals the same identical information that is found in Nebuchadnezzar’s vision (chapter 2), but does give some new, vital information on the fourth and final kingdom of man.

VISION SUMMARY. Four strange looking beasts (empires of man) would emerge out of the sea (gentile nations), being energized by the winds of heaven (divine involvement and activity). The first beast was a winged lion (Babylon) which was followed by a bear (Medo-Persia) and then by a four headed leopard (Greece) and finally by an animal that simply did not look like any animal found in a zoo. That animal (Rome) was ugly and ferocious. As in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar (chapter 2), the fourth kingdom (Rome) had two distinct parts to it. Here the terrible, strong beast (part 1) grew eleven horns (part 2). Ten of the horns emerged first, being followed by an eleventh horn designated as the “little horn.” The “little horn” did not stay little for long, but soon grew larger than the other ten and dominated them. It must be remembered that “horns” stand for both kings and their kingdoms.

A LOOK AT THE “LITTLE HORN” . Daniel was particularly interested in the fourth beast and its horns, and so, asked questions of the interpreting angel. Here is a brief summary of what the text reveals about the “little horn”, who is none other than the Antichrist, the dominant human figure of the Tribulation period.

1. He chronologically arises after the 10 other horns, indicating that he and his kingdom are a late arrival on the world scene, in comparison with the others.
2. While initially he is not as great as the other 10, he soon becomes so. He will become larger than the others and will dominate them.
   
3. He will forcibly defeat three of the 10, most likely by military means. (This would take place in the early days of the Tribulation, if this is what is being described in Revelation 6:1-2). Furthermore, this shows that the Antichrist and the 10 kings are all existing in the world at the same time. It would seem that the 7 who were not specifically conquered simply acquiesce and submit to the Antichrist (note where all 10 are seen as under his authority in Revelation 17:12-13). This would be the western confederacy of nations: 10 western nations (coming out of the old Roman empire, plus the nation of the Antichrist.)
4. In the second half of the Tribulation, he will target believers in the Lord Jesus and will put many of them to death (7:21 with Rev. 13:7-8).
5. His anti-God, anti-Christ activities will be accelerated during the second half of the Tribulation when he will become a world dictator and object of worship (7:25 with Rev. 13:4-6).
6. After his short-lived successes, he will come to his end by the powerful judgment of God. He, his followers and his evil world empire will be exterminated by a direct judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 19:11ff.).

SPECULATING ABOUT THE “LITTLE HORN”. For years Bible students have talked about the ten nations and have speculated about the European Union as fulfilling this prophecy. As the years go by, it seems as though this union is not nearly as powerful economically, politically and militarily as forecast. There are significant cracks appearing in this union as nationalism rises again and many of their economies are near bankruptcy. Very little was said about the eleventh nation which historically arises later and becomes dominant over the ten.

Is it possible that this distinctive eleventh nation could be America? At this point in history, the USA is still the dominant power in the west. Now, fifty years from now, if Jesus does not return, that could change dramatically. But if the rapture and Tribulation were (for sake of argument) one year away, then it is hard to imagine that this country would not be a significant player in the final days of man’s empires. In other words, America would be part of the empire of the Antichrist.

Keep in mind that the “seventieth week of Daniel” (the Tribulation) begins only when the Antichrist makes a treaty with Israel. When he makes that treaty, he is the ruler of just one nation, since the western confederacy of eleven nations is not formed until the first half of the Tribulation. This means that the Antichrist comes from a very powerful nation who is able to actually defend Israel and come to her aid. There are no nations that really fit that bill (Germany might be a candidate sometime in the future but not now). And America, at its roots politically and culturally, is a western nations.

Another factor to keep in mind is the rapture of the Church. When the rapture event removes all believers from the world, including America, then all nations will experience immediate, dramatic moral and spiritual changes. Can you imagine what our nation will be like one week after the rapture when believers are removed? We are witnessing a moral and spiritual decline right now which will accelerate immediately. The decline will be breathtaking.

So while this country is not specifically mentioned in biblical prophecies of the end times, it could be possible that this nation is there as the unnamed eleventh empire. This would seem to be a real possibility, IF the final events are soon to unfold. Something to consider.

However we might answer the question, “is the United States in prophecy”, we are to remember that we hold dual citizenship. We may be citizens of the United States, but our primary allegiance is to our heavenly citizenship. This means we are to represent King Jesus authentically are we live as “aliens” and “pilgrims” in this world (Hebrews 11). Someday the question we have considered will be answered clearly, but until then I would hope that our focus on serving and worshipping our King will be greater and greater.