open source theology

Heaven forbid! - the apostle Paul uses Hebrew’s strongest form of negation to absolutely nail the idea that God will impugn his own faithfulness by not completing his declared purpose for Israel, his son. [Romans 3.4 & 11.1,11]

The idea that all the promises given to Israel could be understood to have been “fulfilled” in the person of Jesus and the events of his first coming derives from Augustine; the modern day derivative of this school of thought has been “restorationalism,” teaching, “replacement theology” etc. which essentially insists that the church is the “New Israel” [this in spite the fact that the sixty or seventy times the New Testament uses the word “Israel” it’s intended plain-sense meaning is almost always the national people Israel, just as in the Old Testament and even the slightly anomalous uses do not support the New Israel argument!]

The opposite school of thought - which insists upon a future time of fulfilment for the national people of Israel, as distinct from the church - has largely been pressed by so-called “dispensationalists.” Such a theological system insists not only upon different ways and manners of God’s dealings (“dispensations”) during different epochs of time (most theologians accept this as a biblical reality) but more importantly upon God’s having two seperate and expressed agendas: one for his earthly people, Israel, another for his heavenly people, the church, the latter forming a ‘parenthesis’ to the former.

(Those familiar with N.T. Wright and his writings will know that the idea that the church is primarily a heavenly people, i.e., in the sense of a people who will be whisked away to heaven, is practically discredited in his eyes. In this sense, it rejects a major tenet of dispensationalism. Those more familiar with N.T. Wright - championed by many on this site, with good reason - will be able to confirm whether his fresh historical-critical theology, highly aware of first-century Judaism and it’s nuances, dovetails with the Augustinian roots beloved of many Anglicans or instead makes room for God’s future historical dealings with Israel as a people…)

Somewhere in between these two extremes, there is, however, another, much more vital, emerging movement which speaks directly into the subject of Israel. This is the Messianic Jewish movement. As far as I am aware, the greatest work of theology issuing forth from this movement is from David Stern, who has authored the extraordinary Jewish New Testament, and the associated Commentary and “Messianic Jewish Manifesto” as part of his effort to heal the great rift between Judaism and Christianity. (The Christian ‘movement’ which has embraced this is sometimes referred to as “Jewish Roots,” but also often has associations with Christian Zionism etc.)

This movement and the theology that underpins it has much in common with certain emphases of N.T. Wright, mainly in consideration of the Jewish roots of the Christian faith and the concept of covenant-based righteousness as over against legalism. In particular, it hails the extraordinary story of the Jewish people and the joining to the “house of Israel” of those Gentiles (non-Jews) who are willing to trust in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua (the greek for which is translated into English as “Jesus Christ”).

When the story of the Jews and their amazing history with their God, is seen from beginning to end, not only does the coming of Jesus find it’s right context, but the entire panorama takes on a drama that makes it quite impossible for us to consider that God has now finished with the Jews as a people.

The apostle Paul makes the first and most obvious refutation: God can’t have finished with the Jews because I myself am a Jew. In fact, the entire early “church” or Messianic Community (to give it a less - or at least differently - culturally-baggaged title) was Jewish and the great struggle was whether the Gentiles were to be included in the people of God who were gathering in “The Way,” around the Messiah and the disciples who represented him, post-ascension.

How ironic, then, that the question today is effectively, “Is there room in the people of God for (the) Jews?” Of course, some will argue that, “Yes, of course, there is room, just as long as they give up all that ‘legalistic’ nonsense, concerned with keeping Torah!” This is not the space to go into that argument, suffice it to say that such ignorance of the real issues is no way forward at all. In fact, we could use Paul’s argument again in our modern context: for sure, God has not finished with the Jews since there are again, for the first time in nearly two thousand years, a real movement of Jews who trust in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.

However, this is still not the real question that Jon’s “old theologian” is asking. He wants to know, Does God have unfinished business with the national people Israel? and it is this to which the answer is “Yes.” and “Heaven forbid!” that we should overlook it.

Israel was a failure in the eyes of many Christians. They failed, so that argument goes, to keep the Law of God and keep his covenant and so he rejected them. Unfortunately, if this is so, then there is no good reason why God may not reject the “church” tomorrow for similar breach of covenant!

In fact, Israel was a success in many ways, if we only understand God’s dealiings with them. And we should because they have much in common with our Saviour. They too were “despised” and “rejected” by men. In fact, they became the “ransom nation,” set aside in the purposes of God - for a season - in order to make room for the Gentile nations. This is the plain reasoning of the apostle Paul in Romans 9-11 - though a serious student of this is advised to consult beyond normal protestant translations and theology if this is to be seen. (The Jewish New Testament and Commentary provide particularly unique insight, but see also Cranfield, Fruchtembaum, Fuller etc.)

Thus, in the fullness of God’s time, “all Israel” will be saved, restored into the “new covenant” that God originally “cut with the House of Israel,” and indeed, this restoration will bring “riches to the world.” The role of the Gentiles (“the church”) in all of this is to show to the Jewish people the same mercy that God has shown to us, in order to provoke the Jewish people to jealousy over their Messiah! Not that we have gotten off to a good start in that department, the “church” having played most generous host to the anti-Semetic virus for hundreds of years.

All of this is to provide a context for examining specific promises in respect of Israel, e.g. Eretz Israel, “the Land of Israel.” etc. This is a complex area of theology; I hope that these thoughts will at least provide an interesting kick-start to this forum…

Wright had explained his interpretation of the position of Israel today in this very comprehensive article:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jerusalem_New_Testament.pdf

I’m sure it will promote further discussion.