Dealing With Part 2

Now for a more difficult part. Dealing with methods of interpreting prophecy. My pastor friend states:

"2. Regarding the point you make about Israel, it's not a difficult concept. One simply must look to the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. Plainly, there is one week of years yet to be accomplished through and with Israel."

It may be plain that one week is left, what is not plain is the hermeneutic or interpretative method. If we are going to take the Bible literally, the question still must be begged, do we interpret the Old Testament as if the Old Covenant were still in force or do we interpret the Old Testament knowing that a greater fulfillment is occurring.

For instance, the Apostle Paul teaches that not all who are Israel are Israel. Does this mean national Israel is how the Old Testament prophecies must be fulfilled? If so, why does Paul redefine for us the meaning of Israel? How often does Paul teach that those who are circumcised in the flesh (ethnic Jews) but not circumcised in heart are not truly Jewish, and teach that Gentiles who are not circumcised in the flesh to being truly Jewish?

Peter also redefines “Nation” to mean the “Church”.

1Pe 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Is Peter to be taken strictly literal here? Are Christians national Israel? If the church is now the New Israeli nation of God, then could not God fulfill His promises in a way that He sees fit? The literal sense of this passage by Peter is that the Church is the new Nation that God has created in Christ. This Nation is made of both Jew and Gentile.

Now to be fair, there are Historic Premillenialists such as John Piper. He interprets Romans 11 as showing that national or ethnic Israel will come as a whole to embrace Christ. This however will only incorporate them into the heavenly Jerusalem and the New Covenant and the Church. As long as the prophecy is interpreted in light of national Israel as being incorporated into the Church (the True National Israel of God), one could potentially solve the dilemma.

To be consistent though, if I am going to take the Bible literally, why should I take an Old Testament prophecy about an Old Covenant people as needing to be fulfilled when the Old Covenant people were rejected? In other words, the New Testament teaches that God has done away with the Old Covenant in the book of Hebrews. Do I ignore this? Should I ignore the fact the author of the Book of Hebrews warns in the strongest of terms ethnically Jewish people not to go back, while Dispensationalists are teaching that we should go backwards in Redemptive history?

The truth is, Dispensationalists ignore the New Covenant, as predicted by Jeremiah 31:31-34, as now being instituted and fulfilled in the Church even though the prophecy describes the New Covenant as being for Israel and Judah. I simply see no attempt by Dispensationalists to deal with such passages.

Simply claiming to believe the Bible literally, does not release one from ignoring the many passages of the New Testament’s teachings about the nature of prophecy and Covenants in how they are to be fulfilled.