Monthly Archives: February 2011

Israel and the Church

In a discussion with a Baptist friend of mine, we had quite a debate with regards to the relationship between the Church and Israel.  It is her view that the present political state of Israel is to be identified with the Israel referenced in the Scriptures.  There are some problems with this view.  The problems I will highlight are by no means exhaustive, but I do believe that they are sufficient to show that the Israel referenced in the Scriptures is to be identified with the Church.
  1. The Scriptures identify the Church with Israel. 
We can read in 1 Peter 2:9-10:
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.  Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
In most cases, Baptists use this as a “proof-text” for what they call “Biblical Separation.”  A simple reading of the text seems to indicate this, but a simple reading of the text fails to take something into consideration: Namely, St. Peter is alluding to Exodus in multiple places.  First we have Exodus 19:5-6 (emphasis mine):
Now therefore if you will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.  These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.
The parallel here is clear enough as to be self-evident.  St. Peter, speaking to the Church ( 1 Peter 1:1-2) uses the same language as God speaks to Moses, but rather than speaking to ethnic Israelites, he is referring to the Church.  There are other passages as well. Leviticus 26:12 identifies Israel as God’s people with the oft-quoted “I shall be their God, and they shall be my people,” and again, St. Peter clearly identifies the Church as God’s people.
2.      The modern political state of Israel does not fit the organizational structure of Biblical Israel, where the Church does.
 The modern political state of Israel, though populated by ethnic Jews, and occupying much of the land as Biblical Israel, has a completely different governmental structure.  Modern Israel is a parliamentary democracy headed by a president and prime minister. This is not the structure of Biblical Israel.  Biblical Israel had a king, not a president, who was descended from the house of David through Solomon.  Also, the mother of the king had a great deal of authority, and petitions to the king often came through the queen-mother.  In addition, the king appointed advisors as overseers over the kingdom, with one serving as a sort of “chief steward” who could actually rule in the king’s stead.  Of course these structures do need Scriptural support since I am speaking of the biblical Israel. I am not going to reproduce the text themselves, but merely providing references.  The Old Testament references will be the references to the Davidic Kingdom; the New Testament will be their fulfillment in Christ and His Church.
Kingship through David: 2 Sam 7:12-14; Mat 1:1-17
Queen Mother: 1 Kings 2:13-18; Luke 1: 41-45, Rev 12: 1-6
King’s Advisors: 1 Kings 4:7-19; Mat 10:1-4, Mk 3:13-19, Lk 6:12-16
Chief Steward: Isa 22:20-24; Mat 16: 13-20
3.      The Kingdom of Heaven is understood to be present now, but to be fulfilled to completeness it the Last Day.
The general view of Evangelicals is that when Jesus spoke of the “Kingdom of Heaven” is that he was speaking of the final reward, and that the Church was merely a temporary measure that was needed because of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews.  The first we hear of this Kingdom is not from Jesus, but John the Baptist.  “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  This means that it is imminent.  It was right around the corner.  After Jesus is baptized, what does he do? He preaches the kingdom.  In the Sermon on the Mount, He opens with the Beatitudes, which are simply qualities of the kingdom’s citizens.  Later, in Matthew 13, He gives a series of parables describing the imperfections in the kingdom.  In the final reward of heaven, there will be no tares among the wheat.  But that does describe the situation in the Church today.  Of course we do have a New Heaven and New Earth to look forward to, but for right now, the Kingdom is very present in the form of the Church. 
Like I said at the beginning, there is much to unpack with regards to Israel in the Last Days, but I strongly feel it is a mistake to look at a sliver of land in the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea as the embodiment of the Biblical Israel.  The New and Everlasting Covenant has expanded God’s People to be more than a single ethnicity from the Near East,  but is now comprised of all nations.  Israel is the People of God, but that means also that the Israel of prophecy is the Church, and not the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob only, even though ethnic Israel will play a role in the eschaton. 

St. Basil

The bread you do not use is the bread of the hungry; the garment hanging in your wardrobe you do not wear is the the garment of him who is naked; the shoes you do not wear are the shoes of the one who is barefoot; the acts of charity you do not perform are so many injustices that you commit.

St. Thomas More

A meek man ought to be have in this way during tribulation; he should neither speak proudly himself nor retort to what is spoken wickedly, but should bless those who speak evil of him and suffer willingly, either fore justice’ sake if he had deserved it or for God’s sake if he has deserved nothing.

The Canon of Scripture

I do spend time on apologetics websites, and I regarding the Scriptures I hear two major errors floating around, one form the Catholic side and one from the Protestant side.  I will address the Catholic one first, simply because it is easier to deal with.  The claim (usually a well-intentioned, but ultimately erroneous attempt to defend Sacred Tradition) is that for the first 300 (or 400, or 500) years of the Church, there was no Scripture at all, and that the Canon came into existence fully formed (usually the date used is AD 383, at the Council of Hippo).  This is simply not the case. Before the council (which was actually a local synod) there were several competing canons. The earliest written record we have of a canonical list issued by orthodox Christianity dates from the late second century.  This is not to be an attack against Sacred Tradition, but simply to point out a poor defense of it.  The more ludicrous claim comes form the Protestant side, and is even to be found in scholarly literature, though it is patently false.  The claim is that the Catholic Church had no Canon until 1546 at the Council of Trent. Allow me to present a brief timeline (which is in no means comprehensive) of the development of the Canon of Scripture:

  • AD 140: The Gnostic Marcion issues a canon consisting of Luke and ten of the Epistles of St. Paul, all of which were heavily redacted as to remove any connection with Judaism or the Incarnation.
  • AD 180-200: The Muratorian Fragment is circulated, indicating four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles (with the exception of Hebrews), two epistles of John, Jude, the Apocalypse of John, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Wisdom of Solomon.
  • AD 348-350: St. Cyril of Jerusalem Issues a 22 book Old Testament Canon (these represent 35 books according to modern divisions). His New Testament Canon was identical to the modern Canon, with the exception that Cyril did not include Revelation.  He also specifically condemns the Gospel of Thomas.
  • AD 360: Council of Laodicea: Canon of Scripture does not include Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, or Revelation.
  • AD 367: St. Atahanasius in a letter maintains the Old Testament Canon of St. Cyril, included Revelation in the New Testament, and holds Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas to have catechetical value.
  • AD 383: Council of Hippo names the modern Catholic Canon, contingent on Rome’s approval.  This same Canon was reaffirmed at Carthage on two occasions–in AD 397 and AD 419.
  • AD 405:  Pope St. Innocent I reaffirms Canon issued at Hippo in Apostolic letter Consulenti tibi.
  • AD 447: Pope St. Leo I emphasized the necessity of the Canon not to be corrupted with Gnostic texts.
  • AD 496: Pope St. Gelasius definitively affirms  the Canon form the Council of Hippo.

This timeline actually demonstrates a defense against both erroneous claims.  The Canon predated Tent by more than 1000 years, and it did not suddenly appear at the Council of Hippo.  I would argue that the long silence between the Decree of Gelasius (496) and the next Church document regarding the Canon (Council of Florence, 1442) shows that the Canon was indeed settled, albeit over a long process of development.