Go to Home Page
DISPENSATIONAL DOCTRINE of the CHURCH vs. ISRAEL
In my experience, there are very few churches today that accurately portray the standing of Israel in God's present economy of grace. What I mean by that is: how well do the doctrinal statements of Christian authors stand up to a literal interpretation of Biblical prophecy? Among the writings that meet this criteria, one of the most helpful is the website of Zola Levitt Ministries, www.levitt.com. A brief summary of their position is given in the following excerpts:
"Israel and the Church: the Differences
http://www.levitt.com/essays/israel-church.html
by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.
"One of the great theological battlegrounds of orthodox Christianity throughout the centuries has
been the nature and character of the Church, especially in relation to its biblical predecessor, Israel.
The two major views are that:
1– The Church is a continuation of Israel
2– The Church is completely different from Israel.
"First View: The Church is Israel
"The predominant view has been that the Church is the “new” Israel, a continuation of the concept
of Israel which began in the Old Testament. In this view, the Church is the refinement and higher
development of the concept of Israel. All of the promises made to Israel in the Scriptures find their
fulfillment in the Church. Thus, the prophecies relating to the blessing and restoration of Israel to
the Promised Land are “spiritualized” into promises of blessing to the Church. The prophecies of
condemnation and judgment, though, are retained literally by the Jewish nation of Israel."
".....The Church became the new Israel, and through this remarkable transformation, wherever
blessing is promised to Israel in the Old Testament, it was interpreted to mean the Church. This
is Replacement Theology, in which the Church has become Israel."
".....Replacement Theology was already around before the end of the First Century, but did not become
the official position of professing Christian leadership until Augustine popularized the concept,
primarily in THE CITY OF GOD, in the latter part of the Fourth Century. Augustine actually states
that he was previously a Chiliast, meaning that he was a believer in the thousand-year reign of
Christ on the earth after His return. This is the same as our current description of Premillennialism.
However, he had come to the conclusion that this view was “carnal,” and had adopted the view that
the reign of Christ would be something more “spiritual,” and would actually occur during the
Church Age. Such a view necessitated the extinction of Israel, and the cancellation of all promises
God made to the Jewish nation. These promises of blessing would now be fulfilled within the
framework of the Church.
"This view, which had been latent in Christendom, now flourished throughout the Byzantine world.
From this point on, the theological legs were cut out from under Israel, and the predominant
Christian theology was that there was no future for Israel. Replacement Theology has been the rule
that has survived the Middle Ages, the Crusades and the Reformation in Church History. Only
during the last Century or so has the Premillennial concept of the future of Israel come to the
forefront in evangelical Christianity. Even so, it is a minority view."
(Above excerpts from http://www.levitt.com/newsletters/1996-05/#SPECIAL)
In support of this position is Paul's warning to Timothy:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may
be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before
God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come
when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap
to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears
from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2Ti 3:16–4:1–4)
It is simply amazing to look back upon the history of the church and observe the doctrinal changes that have been introduced in moving away from the original literal interpretation of scripture. To the Jew the Law was literal and to be obeyed. Mount Sinai was the geographic place where Moses spoke with the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob on the mountain. David was their greatest king-warrior-poet-prophet. None of Israel's heritage was by tradition but by historical revelation. God manifested Himself in signs and wonders, in both audible voice and physical manifestations. When God called out to Abraham to stop him from slaying his son, He called him by name. He audibly reprimanded Moses' brother and sister for questioning His sovereign favor in choosing Moses. Jesus died, rose from the grave and ascended to the Father, from whose Presence He sent the Holy Spirit to empower His disciples and to testify of the Word which He spoke. If we accept these incontrovertible proofs, and the hundreds of prophecies that Christ literally fulfilled, then it seems to me that we are obliged to interpret unfulfilled prophecy in the same literal sense.
Yet some find no problem in changing such prophecies into spiritual allegories in order to force fit them into a preconceived doctrine. In so many words, they have taken what God has said in plain language and transposed it into something which is more suitable to man's frame of reference and sense of justice. But the Bible is the record of the plain and simple revelation of God; it should not be necessary to learn a system of theology in order to understand the language of the Bible, with the exception of the last book wherein symbolism is used extensively.