Pastor Tim Brown, Calvary Chapel Fremont, Wednesday October 5, 2011

Download | Duration: 00:45:50

    Your Best Days Are in Front of You

    Jeremiah 33:1-26

Judah was in moral free fall and facing a back breaking/bone shattering judgment - but since God had made a covenant w/ her, her best days are ahead of her.  I am 58 years old.  There is more of life behind me than there is ahead of me.  But God has made a covenant w/ me and my best days stretch eternally ahead of me.   

1-2 The Lord’s word comes in the context of His character/power.

The Lord had given an outrageous message of hope to J in the previous chapter and wants to cement this in his/our mind.

3  The Lord had already revealed the breath taking future of Israel to J, and now He says there is still more.  God’s word came to J a 2nd time while in confinement – the Lord called to J and now He instructs J to call to Him.   

We are used to passages like Psalm 50:15

Call upon Me in the day of trouble;    

I shall rescue you, and you will honor Me.

This isn’t a call for rescue, but for revelation – an unfolding of the plan/will of God. The Lord had already revealed to J that

    Israel would be restored after the Babylonian Captivity
    Jerusalem would be rebuilt
    Israel would be a nation b4 the Lord through the end of days
    He would make a new covenant w/ Israel

J has had a very full picture of what God will do for/in Israel through the course of history.  But God desires to reveal yet more.  “Come on, J, there’s still more.  Ask Me.”  The Lord delights to reveal His fullness/what He has in store.   

The great/mighty things the Lord will show to J is that Israel is going to be restored to a higher position than she was before she was judged.  The great/mighty things show that your best days are in front of you/there is nothing broken that the Lord can’t fix.   

I see the call of God to J reflected in what Paul wrote to the Ephesians 1:17-23   

A spirit of wisdom/revelation in the knowledge of Him:

    Hope of His calling
    Riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints
    Surpassing greatness of His power

Christ has already been revealed to His people – He is Lamb/Savior/ Substitute/Healer/Propitiator/Refuge – but there is more to Christ to know/appropriate.

This passage in J can mean that the Lord wants to reveal a unique plan/vision He has for your life.  But its force, in context, is a deeper unfolding of what has already been revealed.  The Lord doesn’t reveal a lot of other things to J, He goes deeper into the one thing He has already revealed to J – the restoration of Jerusalem.  God desires to give you deeper insight into Jesus Christ.

4-5 Judgment of Jerusalem

6-26  Great and Mighty Things

6-8  The Depth of Their Healing

Health = long/prolonged (opp. of short)

Healing – rid of disease (that which made Israel’s life short)

It was the rejection of God’s peace/truth which led their sickness in the first place.  What God desires to do/establish in Israel is dependent upon the presence of peace/truth.

Iniquity – to bend/twist

Sin – to miss the mark

Transgression – to cast off allegiance

The depth of our healing comes from the forgiveness of Christ:

Acts 2 - repent/be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins…

Acts 3 – repent/return/sins wiped away/times of refreshing…

9-13  The Breadth of Their Happiness

The breadth of their happiness/joy is greater than their judgment.  The breadth of our happiness comes from joy in the Lord.

14-18  The Extent of Their Fulfillment

God is aware of what promises are awaiting fulfillment.  There are promises that remain unfulfilled in Israel’s life that are tied up w/ her reception of Jesus Christ.  There is no fulfillment apart from Christ.   

Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.  Isaiah 11:1

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of parched ground… Isaiah 53:2

J takes up the theme of Isaiah 135 years previously.   

The offering mentioned here are the same as Lev. 23:34ff  These are free will worship offerings…

The extent of our fulfillment is in Christ.

19-26  The Guarantee of Their Fulfillment

Three covenants are spoken of here:

Covenant for day/night –

Covenant with David/Levitical priests -

Covenant w/ nation of Israel

If the 1st covenant is broken, so, too, will the other two.

Many have tried to demonstrate theologically that the covenant between God/Israel is broken.  They say what v24 affirms of them: …no longer are they as a nation in their sight.   

Replacement theology developed from diminishing influence of Jews in the early church/the destruction of Jerusalem 70 – 135 AD/Jewish–Christian hostilities/church’s appropriation of the Jewish Scriptures.   

The New Testament evidence used to support the replacement view can be categorized in the following way: (1) a passage that shows God has rejected Israel (Matt. 21:43); (2) verses that supposedly apply the terms “Israel” and “Jew” to the church (Gal. 6:16; Rom. 2:28–29; 9:6); (3) passages that apply language used of Old Testament Israel to the church (1 Pet. 2:9; Phil. 3:3); (4) verses that refer to members of the church as “sons of Abraham” or “seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7, 28–29); (5) a passage that shows equality between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11–15, 19); and (6) a passage that applies the New Covenant to the church (Heb. 8:8–13).1

God indicates that the national status of Israel can be annulled only if His covenant w/ the day/night is annulled.   

Great/mighty things: depth of their healing/breadth of their happiness/ extent of their fulfillment/guarantee of their fulfillment.  Best days are ahead!

The Bible, especially the OT, is filled with statements affirming the promise of the land (now called Palestine) to the physical descendants of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob.

Genesis 12:1–3  Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you.

Genesis 15:18–21  On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates….

Genesis 28:13–15 I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants…. And behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land…

2 Samuel 7:10 I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly…

2 Samuel 7:16 And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.

Amos 9:11–15  In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David…. Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, and they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them, They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. I will also plant them on their land, and they will not again be rooted out from their land which I have given them, says the LORD your God.

Ezekiel 37:21–25 I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king of them; and they shall no longer be two nations…. And they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob my servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live in it, they, and their sons, and their sons’ sons, forever…

There are no NT texts that clearly show that God has cancelled his earlier promises.  If such texts did exist, then the validity of those earlier OT promises to each original audience is called into question. If this be so, on what grounds can church saints possess assurance about God’s promises for them, if God has chosen to change his earlier promises?  Could he not do so again? This is one particularly disturbing aspect of replacement theology from the dispensational perspective.2

Reformed theology views any favor being shown to any group of people outside of Christ as compromising the gospel.  To assert that there is national favor upon Israel is to distort the gospel.   

In response, the dispensationalist can say several things. First, this once again shows that covenant theology normally struggles with the idea of distinctions and views virtually all propositions through the lens of the doctrine of salvation. Such an approach to theological matters is a forced one from the dispensational perspective. Dispensationalists do not view Israel’s possession of the land as primarily a soteriological matter until Messiah returns to set up the kingdom. At that time, only saved Jews will inherit the land in ultimate blessing. Until then God is raising up and pulling down nations in world history (quite apart from the issue of salvation on the part of various citizens) including his providential plan for the Jews and Israel. Covenant theology does not struggle with this last point. It would agree that God has in his sovereignty allowed the nation of Israel to be reborn in modern times. What it does not concede, however, is the possibility that the current state of Israel has prophetic significance relative to the keeping of the OT covenant promises, especially when it is in unbelief. Many dispensationalists would say that the current state of Israel, in spite of its unbelief, has potentially significant relevance to prophecy. We may be in the setup for the end time scenario that requires Israel in the land (see later statements). Other dispensationalists are more dogmatic about the current time being the setup for end times. Caution should be urged to avoid “newspaper exegesis.”3

Proposition VI

   The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham were made effective through Christ, Abraham’s True Seed. These promises were not and cannot be made effective through sinful man’s keeping of God’s law. Rather, the promise of an inheritance is made to those only who have faith in Jesus, the True Heir of Abraham. All spiritual benefits are derived from Jesus, and apart from him there is no participation in the promises. Since Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant, all who bless him and his people will be blessed of God, and all who curse him and his people will be cursed of God. These promises do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel. The people of God, whether the church in the wilderness in the OT or the Israel of God among the Gentile Galatians in the NT, are one body who through Jesus will receive the promise of the heavenly city, the everlasting Zion. This heavenly inheritance has been the expectation of the people of God in all ages.

   Dispensationalists would agree that Christ is the basis and provider of all hope and promise in the biblical covenants. However, there are several features of this proposition that differ from a dispensational perspective:

    • The claim that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant do not apply to any particular ethnic group fails to take into account the fact that there are several elements to the covenant. Some elements clearly apply to more than one ethnic group (“in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”). Others are limited to just one man-Abram himself (“make your name great”). Other elements fleshed out throughout biblical history (see the earlier discussion of the land promises) pertain to the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac. There is a lack of precision in the Open Letter’s handling of these exegetical details of the texts that provide teaching about the Abrahamic covenant.

    • The proposition does not do justice to the progress of revelation. To say that these promises apply to the church in the way the Open Letter does is a reading of the NT back into the Old.

    • The designation of the church as the true Israel is an abandonment of literal interpretation and flirtation with allegory.

    • The reference to the “church in the wilderness” as recorded in Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:38) is the typical misuse of the word ecclesia by replacement theology. The word is not a technical term. Here the Open Letter takes the content of ecclesiology and pours it into a word that simply means “assembly” with no ecclesial overtones.

    • There is no reason to take the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 as the church. It would be quite appropriate for Paul, after his scathing attack upon Judaizers, to ask for a blessing upon the saved Jews to show that he was not attacking them as a whole.

    • The inclusion of OT Israel with the NT church in the body of Christ lacks theological precision. The body is defined in Pauline use by means of the baptism of the Spirit. However, the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit is a new ministry of the Spirit that begins on Pentecost and does not occur in the OT. Both John the Baptist (Matt 3:11) and Jesus (Acts 1:5) predict it. Peter looks back upon the day of Pentecost and the baptism of the Spirit as a “beginning” (Acts 11:15–16).

    • The emphasis on a heavenly inheritance in the expectations of the saints throughout the ages downplays the entire tenor of biblical teaching about the future concrete earthly elements of the kingdom (whether millennium or new earth). Is Daniel only expecting a heavenly inheritance when the kingdom of God comes to destroy the fourth world empire in Daniel 2 and 7? Did Job mean a heavenly inheritance when he says, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last He will take His stand on the earth” in Job 19:25? Do the land promises, surveyed briefly before, amount to nothing? How would Amos understand a promise to be in the land never to be removed (Amos 9:15)? Even Jesus in the NT portrays future inheritance of church saints in terms of rewards of administration over earthly “cities,” although these are not taken to be in the land of Israel (Luke 19:11–27). The dispensationalist claims that one should not underemphasize such a large body of scriptural evidence so easily in statements like these. While some covenant theologians disavow any future earthly elements to the inheritance of the saints, including the special promises of God concerning the land of Israel (thereby following a non-literal understanding of these many passages), some covenant theologians do affirm a future earthly inheritance.  The authors of the Open Letter apparently are among those who affirm such an earthly future, although the focus on heaven throughout the letter does not make that clear. 4

Proposition VII

   Jesus taught that his resurrection was the raising of the True Temple of Israel. He has replaced the priesthood, sacrifices, and sanctuary of Israel by fulfilling them in his own glorious priestly ministry and by offering, once and for all, his sacrifice for the world, that is, for both Jew and Gentile. Believers from all nations are now being built up through him into this Third Temple, the church that Jesus promised to build.

   The first sentence of this proposition references John 2:19–22 where Jesus says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up….” The Jews that were listening thought he was talking about the Jewish temple itself, “but he was speaking of the temple of his body.” Nothing here justifies the formal language of a “True Temple of Israel”  or a “Third Temple.” It is true that here Jesus used metaphorical language regarding the temple to speak of his resurrection. It is also true that metaphorical language regarding a temple is used to speak of the church (Eph 2:19–22). However, the church is never called the Third Temple and Jesus’ resurrection body is never called the True Temple of Israel. These associations and linkage derive from the theological system of replacement theology and not the exegesis of the passages that have been cited. Metaphorical language has been turned into technical theological terminology to portray a theological position. Dispensationalists would argue that such language does not rule out a future literal Jewish temple in either the tribulation period or the millennium. Dispensationalists would agree that the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ has done away with sin and the need for atoning sacrifices. 5

Proposition IX

   The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the “Holy Land” cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, the land promises specific to Israel in the OT were fulfilled under Joshua. The NT speaks clearly and prophetically about the destruction of the second temple in A.D. 70. No NT writer foresees a regathering of ethnic Israel in the land, as did the prophets of the OT after the destruction of the first temple in 586 B.C. Moreover, the land promises of the OT are consistently and deliberately expanded in the NT to show the universal dominion of Jesus, who reigns from heaven upon the throne of David, inviting all the nations through the gospel of Grace to partake of his universal and everlasting dominion.

   The dispensationalist disputes most of this proposition. The first statement is countered by the many passages cited earlier which show that God gave the land to Abraham and his descendants. They could be cast out of the land due to idolatry as happened in the case of the Babylonian captivity. However, the Bible always looks at such occurrences as temporary.  Romans 9–11 affirms a future for Israel and does not seem to dismiss any national elements. The book of Revelation, which is to be dated after A.D. 70 and not before as preterists teach,  speaks of Jews in their land and in their capital city Jerusalem (along with a temple) during a future tribulation time. The nation will be delivered and restored.

   As to the claim that Joshua 21:43–45 fulfilled the land promises so that no future fulfillment is necessary, the dispensationalist can make several responses. First, fulfillment of God’s plan for Israel in the conquests of Canaan are not sufficient in and of themselves to fulfill the “everlasting”  nature of the land promises. They are given to the descendants of Abraham as an “everlasting possession” (Gen 17:8). The conquests under Joshua cannot exhaust this promise. Second, to use this to do away with any future claim to the land for Israel ignores the many promises about the land that occur in the biblical record after Joshua’s time. For example, the replacement theologian who uses the Joshua passage in this way must explain how the use of it fits into, for example, the post-Davidic promise to Amos that Israel and Judah would be reunited and brought again into the land (following a time of judgment) never to be uprooted again (Amos 9:15). Finally, the dispensationalist would claim that Joshua 21:43–45 is a record of God’s faithfulness with respect to that particular generation with its focus on the boundaries outlined in Numbers 34 and not the ultimate boundaries that God would eventually grant in his coming kingdom (Gen 15:18–21).

   The last sentence of the proposition teaches that expansion in the NT changes the meaning of the OT text as it was originally written. While the NT can expand promises, it cannot change any earlier unconditional promises. To do so eliminates any meaning for the text for the originally intended audience. Replacement theology often treats the Bible as a whole package and treats it as if all of it were available to earlier times. The dispensationalist would counter that the NT cannot rewrite the OT. The reference to Jesus on the throne of David today will be addressed later.6

Proposition X

   Bad Christian theology regarding the “Holy Land”  contributed to the tragic cruelty of the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Lamentably, bad Christian theology is today attributing to secular Israel a divine mandate to conquer and hold Palestine, with the consequence that the Palestinian people are marginalized and regarded as virtual “Canaanites.” This doctrine is both contrary to the teaching of the NT and a violation of the gospel mandate. In addition, this theology puts those Christians who are urging the violent seizure and occupation of Palestinian land in moral jeopardy of their own bloodguiltiness. Are we as Christians not called to pray for and work for peace, warning both parties to this conflict that those who live by the sword will die by the sword? Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can bring both temporal reconciliation and the hope of an eternal and heavenly inheritance to the Israeli and the Palestinian. Only through Jesus Christ can anyone know peace on earth.

While the dispensationalist appreciates the genuine concern the Open Letter states for the moral responsibility believers have before God in terms of the modern conflict over Palestine, this proposition, like the one before it, has many areas that dispensationalists would reject. The mention of the Crusades is somewhat surprising since replacement theologians have complained, rightfully perhaps, about too many appeals to historical anti-Semitism to criticize their position. Do they not do the same thing with this guilt-by-association argument? They use the abuse of the Crusades to set up their criticism of dispensationalism. But is such an argument really valid? After all, so-called Christians who held to replacement theology led the Crusades. There was no national Israel in view. This weakens the analogy that is being drawn. No dispensationalist is arguing for the church to conquer Palestine, even by proxy through Israel. He simply affirms that, if God allows Israel to do so politically in any given generation, Israel has a right to the land. God has allowed that historical development to take place in the present hour.7

“Replacement theology,” as Thomas Ice explains, “is the view that the Church has permanently replaced Israel as the instrument through which God works and that national Israel does not have a future in the plan of God.”  Replacement theology is based on two premises: (1) God has permanently rejected National Israel, and (2) the church has replaced or superseded Israel in God’s plan. The end result is that the church has become the inheritor of God’s covenant blessings originally given to Israel, and Israel will not be restored as a nation with a distinct identity and function. As replacement theologian Loraine Boettner has stated:

   It may seem harsh to say that, “God is through with the Jews.” But the fact of the matter is that He is through with them as a unified national group having anything more to do with the evangelization of the world. That mission has been taken from them and given to the Christian Church (Matt. 21:43). 8

House has noted that the replacement view has been “the consensus of the church from the middle of the second century A.D. to the present day, with few exceptions.”9

Replacement theology developed from diminishing influence of Jews in the early church/the destruction of Jerusalem 70 – 135 AD/Jewish–Christian hostilities/church’s appropriation of the Jewish Scriptures.   

The New Testament evidence used to support the replacement view can be categorized in the following way: (1) a passage that shows God has rejected Israel (Matt. 21:43); (2) verses that supposedly apply the terms “Israel” and “Jew” to the church (Gal. 6:16; Rom. 2:28–29; 9:6); (3) passages that apply language used of Old Testament Israel to the church (1 Pet. 2:9; Phil. 3:3); (4) verses that refer to members of the church as “sons of Abraham” or “seed of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7, 28–29); (5) a passage that shows equality between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11–15, 19); and (6) a passage that applies the New Covenant to the church (Heb. 8:8–13).10