Well… There’s a lot wrong with the way Christians sometimes interact with each other over differences of belief & practice–at the personal level and at the denominational level, within churches and between them.  We get hung up over small details.  We get defensive and prideful.  We get “factious”, as some translations of Titus 3:9-10 put it.  Individual churches split, whether for good or bad reasons.

And in the past–mostly when the State dipped its hand into the church, or vice-versa–this has led to violence, persecution, and death.  The Spanish Inquisition, the burning of John Huss, the execution of Servetus in Geneva, the persecution of Irish Catholics, or of Anabaptists by both Catholics and Lutherans.  Issues of orthodoxy being settled by the sword.

On the other hand, differences & potential divisions have also been handled with maturity, peace, love, and reconciliation.  Maybe that’s even been the dominant tendency.  (It’s hard to say, since scandalous behavior stands out so much.)  But doing this well is a personal, individual struggle.  It’s something we all must learn, part of our growth in love & maturity.  It’s an area that needs careful attention, with a lot to figure out on resolving conflicts & differences, both the personal & organizational levels.  (It’s what motivates the ecumenical movement–which has its own merits and flaws.)

And as one small piece of the large discussion, I want to ask:  Is the existence of denominations really a scandal, itself?

Denominationalism tends to be a main target any time we critique divisiveness.  After all, could anything epitomize division & separation more than denominations?

And yet… A couple questions:

I’m part of Hope Chapel, a non-denominational church in Austin.  Just down the street, there’s First Cumberland Presbyterian Church.  Does the fact that we’re not the same local church displease God?  The fact that they have the word “Presbyterian” on their sign?  The fact that they’re affiliated with other churches in a large-scale organization–one that doesn’t include us? (Some will say “yes” to the last–it displeases God.)

Is it a scandal that we don’t do everything the same way? As a Presbyterian church, they hold certain things in common with other Presbyterians.  They practice infant baptism, believing that it inducts children into the community of the church.  (My church doesn’t, believing that baptism is something consciously chosen.)  Their church is led by elders/presbyters, both “teaching elders” and “ruling elders”.  (We also have elders, in addition to our senior pastor.)  They believe that local churches should be grouped together in synods, providing oversight & mediation of disputes–and synods grouped in the general assembly.  (My church is independent.)

They hold to these things out of biblical conviction–they think it’s how God wants church to look.  Including the part that involves large-scale organization.  So is it really a scandal for them to group together, and have a name for the group?  Is it a scandal that we’re not part of that grouping, because we don’t do things the same way–since our understanding of Scripture’s guidance is different?

In the perfect world to come, we won’t have those differences.  They’re happening because somewhere, some of us are misunderstanding & making mistakes.  And someday, we’ll be with God more directly and won’t have those problems.  (The differences of principle will disappear, if perhaps not the differences of style.)

But in the meantime, where does the scandal come in?  From the very existence of different denominations?  Or is it possible to have a God-honoring unity in spite of our denominational differences?  A unity rooted in Christ & the Gospel?  A unity reflected in the way we interact with each other, across our denominational lines?

As we seek to treat one another as brothers & sisters in Christ in this world, ridding ourselves of a divisive spirit, will that actually require dismantling denominations?

I think it went well.  It was both easy and difficult to prepare.  Easy, because of some excellent sermons & commentary on the Lord’s Supper that were percolating in my brain.  Difficult, to condense it to a concise, clear reflection.  The material on it in 1 Corinthians 10-11 is fairly rich, and I couldn’t begin to do it justice in 5 minutes.  I focused on an element that has not been emphasized, in my past church experience:  How communion relates to community and love and relationship, and what it means to examine ourselves.

There was so much more, though.  I’d like to do a series of posts expanding on it, from the gospel accounts and from more of 1 Corinthians.  I’ll try to get it done during the month of December.

You can listen to or download the recording at our sermon archive, if you’d like.  Or, here’s the transcript.  Also, here’s the short description from the archive:

What does it mean to examine ourselves, judge ourselves rightly, and discern the body? The answer is rooted in Christ’s physical body–his sacrifice–and in the gathered church as the body of Christ. We unite in love to participate in Christ, proclaiming the gospel and showing its power.

———————————————-
Good morning, Hope Chapel, my name is Tim Margheim.  Please hold the elements until we all partake together.  If you’re a guest, know we invite all Christians to join with us.  Parents, we leave it to you to determine whether your children are ready to participate.

Today I’d like to speak from 1 Corinthians 11, Paul’s discussion of communion, in order to draw out something that wasn’t often emphasized about the Lord’s Supper, in my upbringing.

We know that the Lord’s Supper is a thing of joy and grace.  But Paul wrote in disappointment with the church in Corinth, saying, “In the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.”  They were taking this meal in a way that turned it from a blessing to a curse.  He cautioned them, saying,

Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.

So Paul is concerned about the way we approach the Lord’s Supper.  What does it mean to examine ourselves, judge ourselves rightly, and discern the body?

The more familiar part of the answer is that we should take the meal seriously, remembering Christ and his sacrifice on the Cross, in our place, for our sins.  And judging ourselves rightly means that we know we can’t make ourselves worthy.  He didn’t say, “Only come if your life is where God wants it to be,” or “if you pray enough”, or “if you read your Bible enough”, or “if you’ve done enough good deeds”. There is a worthy manner of celebrating, with humble, repentant awareness of Christ’s sacrifice for our sin.  But we come depending on God’s gift, in the middle of our failures.  This is the gospel, the central meaning of the Supper.

But it might be less familiar that Paul’s main criticism was about the way they were treating each other.  He said, “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat,” and “when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you”.  Some ate full meals while others went hungry.  Paul asked, “Do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?”  They came together, but they came divisively.

In this light, what does it mean to examine ourselves and “discern the body”?

In the fall, our elder Cotton Hance pointed out a double-meaning in the phrase, “discern the body”: On the one hand, there’s Christ’s physical body–his sacrifice.  On the other hand, we are the body.  And when they came divisively, they twisted the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.

If we remember the work of Christ to save us, we should remember what he saved us for.  He died, not just to save us as individuals from hell, but also to bring us together into a family.  He says “discern the body”, and in the very next chapter he says that we are one body, with many members.  That we need each other, and are called into the most excellent way of love–the love of the Spirit, by which all the world will see that we are Christ’s disciples.  We’re called to be servants, opening our lives and surrendering our time, allowing God to knit us together in true relationship–not just here on Sunday, but throughout each week, in Hope groups, in phone calls, in meetings in coffee shops, in inviting each other into our homes to share meals. This love, this community, where God’s kingdom is breaking into the world, is intended to be a light of hope, both proclaiming the gospel and showing its power, to a broken world of sinners in desperate need of salvation.

So now, having come together, let us examine ourselves.  Let us be one, in humble repentance, remembering the gift of Christ’s sacrifice, and rejoicing in the gift of his work among us.  Let’s pray.

Father, we receive, and we thank you for your work among us.  Please Father, continue your work of love.  Give us the peace and freedom of loving each other well.  Help us not to keep records of wrongs, and forgive us for sometimes failing each other, and give us hope for new change.  May we approach this meal today with love, and with openness, and with reverence; it is Christ’s body and blood, for us.  And may we approach our relationships with one other with something of the same importance, because together, we are Christ’s body.  May our lives display the work of your love, and may the world see Christ in us.  May we be quick to speak the words of life, the words of good news, calling the world to repent and receive this gift.   May we have the joy of baptizing many into the body of Christ, to be part of your family, adopted through Jesus.  And Father, may every celebration of this table be a renewal and a reminder and a proclamation of all the grace and peace and truth and love that is in Christ.  In the name of Jesus, as his body, by his work, we pray, amen.

So let us eat together, from Christ’s body, broken on the Cross for us.

And let us take the cup together, and drink from Christ’s blood, the new covenant with God, poured out for our sins.

Self-centered teaching: Go off, think allegedly insightful, ground-breaking, epiphanic thoughts.  Then gather an audience and broadcast your views.  Stop there.  (Analogy:  A radio.  Tossing spaghetti against the wall, but not really caring if it sticks.  Example: Arrogant, unconcerned professors.)

Christ-like teaching: Because you’re motivated by genuine affection & concern for people, you get involved with people’s lives.  You make time.  Intimacy happens.  You might be a lecture-style teacher, or a blogger, or a radio host–but your life also includes discipleship relationships. You meet with people, you know what’s going on in their lives, you’re concerned about them and their growth.  You follow up.

Why this is on my mind: I’ve been realizing that some aspects of my personal relationships really stink.  Or are underdeveloped.  I want to change–to see all my relationships be more natural, friendly, affectionate, generous, discerning, and humble.  In the area of truth/teaching/doctrine/understanding, I want to include a genuine posture of hearing & receiving.  I want my speaking/teaching/encouraging to come out of an integrated concern for people.  I want to be able to talk about these things naturally, conversationally.

Coincidentally, Frank Turk just posted something this morning on a related subject (comment #6).  He included a highly appropriate verse, so here it is:

Paul, talking to his protege Timothy:

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. (1 Tim. 1:5-7)

I love to study.  To read.  To learn.  I’m like many theology-reading, coffee-shop-dwelling, blog-haunting, podcast-devouring twenty-somethings.

It can be a source of pride.  Forget justification by works–we’ve got justification by podcast.  You want to see fruit?  Just look at the list of people who I read & listen to.  Impressive, no?

Studying Well

Do we study to master the information?  To delight in fascinating controversy?  To best opponents?

Or do we study to see God more clearly, to love him more truly?  Know him, to depend on his promises, and to stop living in small-minded, self-centered ways?  Do we study to look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere in pure, undefiled religion before God?  To see and hear Christ, and act?  To rein in spiteful tongues, to speak blessing & encouragement, and to love those who need it most?  (James 1:22-27)

Do we study like this?

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

[...]

If anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 2:14-26

The study that God desires is study that bears fruit, in my own life and in others’.

The Test of a Spiritual Gift

I fancy myself as one with the spiritual gift of teaching.  I certainly enjoy knowledge, and I enjoy explaining things.  But why?  Is it because I enjoy the sound of my own voice?  Being recognized and praised?

A spiritual gift, Paul says, is a way that the Spirit of God works through us for the benefit of everyone–encouragement, and comfort, and service, and love, building each other up, caring for one another.  When it involves a talent, it is not simply a talent.  It is a talent harnessed. Harnessed to the work of the Master, the Savior, the Good Shepherd.  The Comforter.  It’s the Spirit, doing his work through us.

I do not want to be a self-involved Explorer of Theology, going out to explore the worlds of thought, bringing back nuggets of conceptual gold to be admired.  Not a mere lecturer.  I want to be a better friend, a true friend.  I want to walk through life with people I love.  I want my study and my teaching to be in a community, for a community.  I want to wrestle together, and to learn from my brothers and sisters.  I want to speak comfort and blessing.  I want to be involved in the lives of my friends.  I want to help where I can, and receive the help I need.

If I must boast or feel pride, I want to measure success in lives.  In my impact on people.  In ministry of grace from God.

That is a spiritual gift.  That is walking like Christ, in the Spirit.

To Sum Up: The Parable of the Ten Minas

Our sermon last Sunday was on a version of the parable of the talents, recorded by Luke, told when Jesus was about to enter Jerusalem.  Jesus spoke about the time we live in now, waiting for the king to return.

Jesus compared us to servants, who were given an amount of money, and told to engage in business till his return.  He showed us that we are supposed to take what God has given us, and put it to work.  To serve God’s interests.  To bear fruit.  To be faithful with what we have.

There’s something ugly about the lazy servant, the useless servant, who did nothing with what he was given.  Who did not serve.  And it’s so weird that we should ever be reluctant.  What could possibly be better & more satisfying than doing things his way?  What could be better than beholding God, worshipping him, and blessing people?

The first debate is over baptism and local church oversight.  Who performs baptisms?  Does it need to be done by a local church?  Can you baptize yourself?  Where the rubber meets the road: If you weren’t baptized by a church, should you be rebaptized?

I like the discussion.  Here are the links.  (I’ll try to add the rest, as they post more.)  As always, I comment under the name “Jugulum”.

1. Diverse Voices Debate: Is Church Oversight Essential for Baptism?
2. Diverse Baptists Debate: Church Oversight of Baptism- Foster’s Rebuttal of Miller
3. A Response to the Baptism Oversight Debate

——————-

In my judgment, the case  for necessary church oversight isn’t strong.  But I want to make two “meta” comments about conversation itself, and one about the content of the debate.  (The specific observation is a quote from a comment I left at the first entry.)

The two general issues:

1.) Is it stupid even to be having this kind of debate?  Is it just quibbling?
2.) Even if we disagree with the other side’s final conclusion, we can still learn & grow from the principles & arguments they use.  (In this case: We can grow in understanding the symbolism & meaning of baptism, and think about how to preserve the richness of what God has given us.)

The specific comment:

3.) We should care about preserving & reflecting the symbolism of baptism in how we practice.  But “this preserves the symbolism better” doesn’t imply “it’s not valid without it.”  A comparison to the Lord’s Supper may help.

1. Is It Quibbling?

Many people will probably wonder why the debate is even happening–either because they think church oversight is obviously not necessary, or it obviously is, or because it’s silly to worry about how other people are doing it.  (When my friend Hannah saw the debate, she tweeted that it’s irritating & dissenting when “people quibble over stuff. It just doesn’t seem worth arguing about. You do it your way, I won’t. There. Solved.”)

If we haven’t thought through the issue specifically, we’ll tend to assume according to our background & tradition.  Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians…  Any high-church group will tend to think a church is necessary.  (And Baptists are high-church on baptism!)  Non-denominational groups or generic evangelicals will tend to go the other way.

The ways it doesn’t matter:

• It doesn’t affect salvation.
• It’s not worth splitting a church.
• It’s not worth breaking friendships.
• It’s not worth getting emotionally worked-up.
  

But you also shouldn’t dismiss the debate as meaningless.  It isn’t coming from a matter of preference.  It’s happening because someone has a biblical conviction.  They think that God’s word is teaching us, “Do things this way.”  They may be wrong, but we should give them a hearing.  A discerning, loving, civil, brotherly discussion.

The best of Christianity isn’t found in ignoring matters of disagreement.  It’s found in following Christ by the power of the Spirit, and working through disagreement as best we can–and it’s found in how we treat each other when we still disagree.

And yes, it’s also found in exercising discernment over the relative importance of different questions.  And there’s a place for “You do it your way, I won’t”, even on matters of some importance–but that comes after hearing each other, learning from each other, and exploring the Word together.

2. Hearing Their Valid Points

The meat of a debate often isn’t in the final conclusion.  It’s in examining the underlying principles.  It’s in the underlying values & truths that each side is trying to apply to reach their conclusion.

If you approach the debate solely from a “Did they prove their final point?” perspective, you might miss the growth & edification that the Spirit gives us through each other.  You might focus on the flaws & weaknesses in their arguments–which will probably be present even if they’re right–and you might gloss over the valid points that they make. Even if they’re wrong, they might see things that you’re missing.  (And if you recognize their valid points during the debate, then your criticisms are more likely to be sound & on-target.  And they’re more likely to receive your critiques.)

In this debate, Robin Foster is arguing that valid baptism is baptism into the church, conducted by representatives of a local church.  He’s arguing from the church’s role as the “pillar and buttress of the truth”, and he’s arguing from the particular truth of what baptism means–the symbolism of joining the body of Christ.

So: Take this opportunity to consider the meaning of baptism.  Appreciate the richness of the symbolism.  Consider the best way to preserve that meaning in how we practice it.  (Don’t just think about the minimum components of a valid baptism–think about the best way to practice it.)  And yes, consider whether there’s an actual requirement to follow.

3. Symbolism, “One Bread”, and the Lord’s Supper

In the comment section, I challenged Robin on how he was using 1 Tim. 3:15, that the church is the “pillar and buttress of the truth”.  He clarified by referring to the symbolism of baptism, and how it involves the church as well as the believer.  (He did that further in his rebuttal.)

I replied:

The difficulty is following you to your application–that baptism isn’t valid without local church oversight. (I agree with David Miller–that our normal practice should be baptism in a local church context, but that it isn’t required for a baptism to be valid.)

I don’t see how you’re bridging the gap between “the symbolism is baptism into the body” to “an official local church representative is required”.

As a parallel: In the Lord’s Supper, the symbolism includes the Body of Christ all partaking of one bread. (1 Cor 10:17) Not individual crackers–a loaf broken and shared. One body, partaking of one bread.

Actually using one loaf preserves more of the symbolism. I understand saying, “Therefore, it should be the normal practice.” But can we really say, “Therefore, we have not actually participated in the Lord’s Supper if we use individual crackers”?

Perhaps you would say that. But if not, why? Why do you go from symbolism to application in one case, but not the other?

Stop attending church.

Frank Turk’s reply:  “Indeed: what if you loved your church?”

After I posted a link to Frank’s recent blog series called Not Done Lightly (scroll to the bottom and read upward), where he discusses the reasons for his strong belief that we should almost never leave a church unless we’re asked to leave, Kelly F. posted:

I glanced at Turk’s stuff and I think he’s making very good points. A real challenge, though, in committing oneself fully to a church is that in our mobile, unrooted lives we often find ourselves in the position of ’shopping’ for a church. There’s really no way around it when you move to a new neighborhood or town. But then after you’ve chosen a particular church you have to stop thinking of it as a commodity to choose and start thinking of it as a family you’re called to love, bear with, and serve. It’s a hard switch to make.

The flip side of this is that church leaders (in general) have to stop acting like they are trying to sell a product to a target market. We’re called to make disciples, not make a sale.

So.  Let’s try not to attend church.  Let’s try to commit to loving a church, a community, as a family.

I think it’s pretty clear that Paul is pointing forward to a future spiritual renewal of ethnic Israel, in which many many Jews will find the Messiah.

But I don’t think Romans 9-11 says anything else about the end times.  It doesn’t say anything about the role of Israel in the end times.  If you only read these chapters, you don’t find anything about Israel’s role in the kingdom of God.  You don’t find anything about the millenium.  You don’t even find anything about the land of Israel.

Not directly, anyway.  Paul does say, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (v. 29).  And he does seem to think that the bloodlines still matter for something.  But we have to read other parts of the Bible in order to find out what exactly are “the gifts and calling of God”.

It might still turn out that some of the promises & prophecies were typological, or “spiritual” in some sense.  Not face value.  (When they’re fulfilled, it might not turn out like you would think at first glance.)  But like I said in the last entry, we have to be careful with that.  If you want to claim that’s what will happen, you should have good exegetical reason for doing it.  (Just because you can think of some way that “This promise about Israel is fulfilled in Christ & the Church”, doesn’t mean you’re reading it the way it was intended.)  Especially the further you move away from taking it at “face value”.

Observations

1.) When Paul says that God’s promise hasn’t failed, his emphasis is not, “Because the Church is the true Israel.”  (That’s what Replacement theologians tend to say.)  Instead, his emphasis is, “Because the remnant of the Jews has come to Christ.”   Even if you think the Church is Israel–even if you think Paul says so–it should be clear that Paul doesn’t depend on that idea here.  His response is based on the remnant.

2.) Paul makes a big point of the fact that God did have a faithful remnant of some Jews.  Apparently, if all the Jews had rejected the Messiah, God’s promise would have failed.  So in some way, the bloodlines do still matter.   It does matter for ethnic Jews to follow Christ.

3.) Paul does talk about including the Gentiles as God’s children, as beloveds, as his people.  God brings “vessels of mercy” from out of the Gentiles, as well as from out of the Jews.  But Paul doesn’t directly say anything here like, “Therefore we can call the whole body of Christ ‘Israel’.”  (The arguable place is 11:25-26, which I’ll get to in a moment.  Also, Gal. 6:16 or Rom. 2:29 might say so–but that would be a different argument.  What does this passage mean?)

4.) In some places in the passage, “Israel” can only mean ethnic Israel, not “believing Jews + the Gentiles”.

As an exercise, try walking through all three chapters, and replace “Israel” with either “ethnic Israel” or “true Israel”.  Try it both ways in each case.  See which ones are clearly “ethnic Israel”.  See which ones are arguable.

Especially, let’s try that in 11:25-26.

5.) “Israel” shows up twice in 11:25-26.  The first time is clear, but the second time is arguable.

a partial hardening has come upon [ethnic] Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel [???] will be saved, as it is written,

On the one hand, maybe it means “a vast majority of Jews will come to Christ”.  (”All Israel” doesn’t necessarily mean “every individual”, even though that might sound more natural.)

On the other hand, maybe it means, “every individual from true Israel (whether Jew or Gentile) will find mercy”.

That makes more sense out of “all Israel”.  And the basic idea of “true Israel” makes sense with the earlier stuff about including the Gentiles.  And it makes sense with some other passages.  But–I can’t make sense of it in the context.

Paul had talked about making the unbelieving Jews jealous in order to save them, and desiring them to be grafted back in.  Then he talks about a temporary partial hardening.  It seems to go, “Partial hardening on the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and then the hardening will be released, and more Jews will be saved.”

The “true Israel” really doesn’t fit well, if you keep going from v. 25 through to vs. 32.  You might think “true Israel” works in v. 26, but keep reading.  Pay attention to what happens when you hit v. 28, and especially v. 31:

so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.

Who has been disobedient?  Ethnic Israel.  Who is Paul hoping will receive mercy?  Ethnic Israel.

If you read v. 26 by itself, maybe it can work.  But it stops working when you hit v. 28.

6.) Last comment: Paul definitely talks about the Gentiles being included as God’s people, and he says they are “children of the promise”.  Galatians also connects us with Abraham (Gal. 3:29).  But what about the later Mosaic covenant?  Maybe we’re included in Abraham, but not Moses.  What about all the later promises that God didn’t make to Abraham, but made to Israel and the people of Israel?  Do we have to be included in both?

I really don’t know.  But I don’t think Paul intended to answer that question in Rom. 9-11–he’s mainly addressing the promises of salvation.  (And in 9:3-5 and 11:28-29, he’s maybe pointing out some particular promises & blessings for ethnic Israel.  I’m not sure.)

So, I don’t think you should take your final answer from Rom. 9-11.  Even if it turns out that Gentile Christians do receive all the promises & covenants & prophecies to Israel, we would need to do more work to figure that out. We need to look at the various promises and prophecies, and look at what the New Testament says about them, and see what makes sense.  In particular, we need to look at the land promises, and see what God specifically promised.  And Jeremiah 31:35-37 is important.

—-

Back to “How do we interpret the Bible?” in general.

Covenant theologians are right–that we need to let the New Testament interpret the Old, where it does so. And Dispensationalists are right–that we need to be careful about over-allegorizing, where the Bible doesn’t justify doing it.  We should take it at face value unless we have good reason not to.

That’s where I’m at.  I need to study the Old Testament promises, and find out what the New Testament says about them.

I have just one more comment about Israel and the Church in the end-times.  But I’ll save that for another entry.  A brief one.  I promise.

Romans 9-11 is one of the most important New Testament passages about the Church and Israel.  It’s interesting:  People on both sides argue, “My side has to be right–just look at Romans 9-11!”  There are other important passages–Galatians, Hebrews, & Revelation (particularly Gal. 6:16 and Rom. 2:29.) I know I haven’t studied them enough to come to really solid conclusions.  But on Romans 9-11, there are some things that I think are pretty clear.

The three chapters culminate in 11:25-32.  And that passage includes the key phrase, “in this way all Israel will be saved”.  What does Paul mean?  Is he talking about ethnic Israel?  Or is he talking about “true Israel”–all the children of God in Christ?

Dispensationalists (and some Replacement theologians) take “all Israel will be saved” to mean that there will be a future restoration of ethnic Israel:  Many Jews will turn to Christ.  (”See!”, they say, “Israel is still distinct from the Church in the plans of God!”)

Replacement theologians tend to take it this way:  Even though so much of Israel has rejected Christ, the promises of God will not fail–because true Israel is all those who believe in Christ, both Jew and Gentile.  And all of true Israel will be saved.  (”See!”, they say, “Everyone who knows Christ is now part of Israel!”)

I’m still trying to work some things out–there are pieces of this passage that aren’t clear to me.  I do think the Replacement crowd are at least partly right.  Ch. 9-11 is definitely about how the promises of God have not failed, and it definitely emphasizes unity between Jews and Gentiles in salvation.  The whole Church is definitely part of God’s family, and does inherit promises from the Old Testament.

But I’ve also concluded this:  Paul does point to future restoration & salvation for ethnic Israel, i.e. for currently unbelieving Jews.  And ultimately, this passage doesn’t say, “‘Israel’ now means the Church.” Replacement theologians are reading that in, they’re not getting it from here.  (Maybe you could build a case from other passages, but here, it’s not what Paul said.)

To see that, I want to walk through the passage to see the major flow of thought.  Then I want to look at how is the word “Israel” is used–and at what exactly the Gentiles are included in.  (I’m not perfectly clear on the last part.)

I’ll summarize, and zoom in on Ch. 11.  And to get some context, I’ll also say a bit about Ch. 7-8 and Ch. 12.

—————-

(Romans 7-8) The background: In the midst of your weakness and struggles, rest secure in the promises of God.  He will rescue you.  He has called you, and given you a new heart, and has predestined you to be transformed to be like Christ.  Nothing can separate us from his love.  His promises will not fail.

The transition: Paul seems to anticipate an objection:  “Woah, wait up.  What about the Jews, most of whom rejected Christ?  Hasn’t God’s promise to Israel failed?  How can we rest secure, if they fell?”

(Romans 9) The basic answer: My heart breaks for the Jews, who own so many blessings–but no, the promise hasn’t failed.  Because a remnant of Israel did obtain it.  The promises were never meant for all ethnic Israel.  There were always physical descendants who weren’t children of the promise.  Always, God has chosen some–the remnant, chosen by grace, who rest in faith.  God’s children pursue him by faith, not on the basis of their works.  And God has now brought the Gentiles into his family–he has called them his people, his beloved, and they trust in Christ.  But today, most of the Jews are pursuing a righteousness based on their works.  So they’ve stumbled.

(Romans 10) I yearn for the Jews’ salvation–but we must know that salvation is by faith, not by works.  And salvation is for all who believe, both Jew and Gentile.  The gospel message has gone out into the world, but Israel has not all obeyed that gospel by believing.  The Gentiles are finding him, and thus God is making the Jews jealous.

(Romans 11:1-16) The reiterated answer: God has not rejected his people, God’s Word has not failed.  Because a remnant of the Jews, the elected remnant, has obtained it–and the rest were hardened.  But did God harden them in order to make them fall?  In order to finally reject them?  No!  Their sin caused the riches of the gospel to come to the Gentiles–and that’s making Israel jealous in turn!  I long to make my fellow Jews jealous, and so save some of them.

(Romans 11:17-24) Now, you Gentiles in the Church, don’t be arrogant toward the Jews!  (Antisemites: You’re being morons.)  Don’t be proud of how they were broken off so that you could grafted in.  They were removed because they did not believe.  You stand in faith–but you too could be removed for unbelief, and they could be restored!

(Romans 11:25-32) “I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved”.  You received mercy because of the disobedience of the Jews, but they were disobedient so that through your reception of mercy they would receive mercy, too!  (Er… Stop, you may need to read that sentence a couple times.)  In other words, their temporary disobedience leads to your salvation leads to their salvation.

(Romans 12) Because of all this–because of his gifts and calling, the necessity of persevering in faith, and the work of the Spirit to use everything in our lives, predestining us to be transformed to be like Christ–offer your lives to God, in worship.  Don’t conform to the world, conform to Christ.  (Perhaps: Gaze at God’s mercy in Christ, understand that his way is the most beautiful, glorious thing, and pursue it.  Show that God is good by living like you really value his way.)  Understand that you need the whole body of Christ (Jew and Gentile!), and all of you exercise the gifts God has given you.  Serve from genuine hearts of passionate pursuit of hope and joy and service and generosity and humility.

—————-

In the next post, I’ll continue with some observations.  In the meantime, you might reread Romans, and decide whether I’m summarizing it correctly.

• In what sense were Gentile believers grafted into the children of Abraham?
• Did the Church replace Israel?
• Does ethnic Israel have any distinct role in the future?
• Do all of the covenants and promises of God to Israel now apply to the Church?

And there are some related questions.  (They’re distinct questions, but they tend to be asked at the same time.)

• Were Old Testament believers saved in the same way that New Testament believers were saved?
• What is “the kingdom of God”?
• Will  there be a 1000-year period on Earth before the final end of the world, where Christ reigns from Jerusalem?
• Will the Church experience the final Tribulation, or will we be taken to heaven beforehand? (i.e., Is there a pre-Tribulation Rapture?  Will there be two Second Comings–one to retrieve the Church, and then again at the end?)

Who Says What

Things get complicated, and hard to classify.  As an oversimplification:

Dispensationalists say that Israel and the Church are still distinct.  (The Left Behind series shows the stereotypical dispensationalist version of the end times, with a pre-trib rapture, and lots of stuff with Israel.)  They typically refer to the other position as “Replacement Theology“, though that’s a phrase that the other side often doesn’t like.  Two things they emphasize are: (1) a future renewal of Israel, with many many Jews coming to understand the Jesus was the Messiah, and (2) God will still fulfill His promises about the Jews possessing the land of Israel.  (So dispensationalists definitely take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict!)  There’s a lot more to dispensationalism than these particular questions (like how they divide up history into different periods of God’s work), but these two are pretty big–and they’re the ones I’m interested in for this post.  (Sidenote: A dispensationalist catch-phrase is, “We just take the Bible literally.”  They think the other positions don’t take the Bible at face value.)

Generic evangelicalism is usually dispensationalist.  It’s been that way since the Scofield Reference Bible.

Since very early in church history, though, most Christians have believed that the Church was fully included in Israel–that there’s no more distinct role in the plans of God for ethnic Israel, apart from Gentile believers.  In other words, that Gentiles who know Christ also inherit all the promises & covenants with Israel.  (Notice: When you put it that way, it sounds better than “the Church replaced the Jews.”)  All of the promises & prophecies of the Old Testament are interpreted in terms of, “How was this fulfilled in the Jesus & the body of Christ, or how is it going to be?”  For instance, the land promises might be understood in terms of the new heavens & new earth, or the new Jerusalem, or the kingdom of God in general.  This view is more likely to interpret Old Testament prophecy in terms of typology. (i.e., Israel was a type for the Church, like David was a type for Christ.  Or maybe the land was a type for the Kingdom.)  (Sidenote: A catch-phrase for these people is sometimes, “We let the New Testament interpret the Old.  We find out what the promises & prophecies mean from Jesus & the apostles.”  That’s their response to the dispensationalists’ catchphrase,”We take the Bible literally.”)

Lutherans and Reformed Christians usually take this kind of view, as do Catholics and Orthodox.  On the Protestant side, they often use the term “Covenant Theology“, as opposed to Dispensationalism.

Now the Caution Label

Like I already said, this was an oversimplification.  And people tend to oversimplify The Other Side, whichever side they’re on.

For instance, people who believe in Replacement Theology might still believe that there will be a large number of Jews who come to know Christ.  And people who reject Replacement Theology aren’t necessarily full-fledged, Left-Behind-style Classic Dispensationalists.

We tend to assume that certain things go together, when maybe they don’t have to.

Trying  To Figure It Out

I’ve been discussing this lately with some friends, so I want to refresh my own memory with some general advice for approaching theological controversy.

1. Don’t be too attached to your initial assumptions.
2. Don’t oversimplify the other side–even if you’ve only encountered simple versions so far.  Look for nuance that you haven’t found yet.  (Maybe the person you’re talking to now is more thoughtful and has better reasons than the silly people you talked to last time.)
3. Keep in mind: They may have better reasons than you know for what they think.  (Listen fully before you decide!)
4. Do challenge people to show where they get their ideas from the Bible–but watch out for a prideful assumption, “My side is the only one that really takes the Bible seriously.”  (And let the other side speak fully before you decide, “You’re not getting this from the Bible!”)
5. Watch out for unnecessary/unfair rhetoric.  (”You think God broke his promises” isn’t a fair criticism of someone who interprets the promises differently.)

I think this is all good advice… But I struggle to follow it.  It’s so easy to become unnecessarily combative & closed-minded.

More Reading

For more thoughts on approaching controversy, see Michael Patton’s entry on “irenic/peaceful theology”.

For more reading on dispensationalism, see Dan Phillips’ entry, What Dispensationalism Isn’t, and his book review of Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, by Michael J. Vlach.

Also see my next entry, where I’ll talk about Israel in Romans 9-11.