I was in the car today, listening to the local Christian radio station and the gentleman who was teaching was talking about how the pivotal moment in the book of Acts is the stoning of Stephen. I wish I could quote him, but unfortunately I don't have perfect auditory memory. The crux of his argument is that God was formerly doing something with the nation of Israel and then, God sets them aside to start something new with the Church. Stephen's remarks before he dies, in the mind of this teacher, were the finishing of God's work with Israel and then with Paul's vision of Jesus, that was beginning of God doing something new with the Gentiles. I immediately turned it off and started crying out to God in prayer.
This argument, that God is now doing something new has such a fundamental flaw in it that it makes me wonder, at the end of the day, is the Gentile church worshipping some other God than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? This issue is that serious.
With Abraham, God not only makes a unilateral (one-sided) Covenant, but in Abraham, God also forms and then continues, throughout the rest of the Tanakh, to self-identify as the God of Israel.
"Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those you bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all of the families of the earth will be blessed." (Gen. 12:1-3)
As this covenant continues to develop with Jacob, with Moses and with David, never do you see God saying he will ever give up on His chosen people. You see covenant discipline, you see God hardening the hearts of His own people (temporarily), but you never see God turning His back on them completely, permanently. In Deuteronomy 31, Moses is warned that the Israelites are going to turn away from God. God says to Moses,
"You are about to lie down with your fathers; and this people will arise and play the harlot with the strange gods of the land, into the midst of which they are going, and will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. Then My anger will be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them and hide my face from them..." (Deut. 31:16-17)
God gives Moses the words to a song that he is to teach Israel, as a witness against them. That song is recorded in Deuteronomy 32. In that song, it talks about how Israel will 'act corruptly' against God, how they will forsake God and 'neglect the Rock who begot you.' It talks about how God will hide his face from the his chosen people, and how he will make them jealous a people who are 'not a people'. He will heap misfortune on them. But at the end, it talks about God vindicating his people, its a picture of them returning to Him and God striking down the enemies of Israel. It is a reconciliation.
Even the Apostles knew that God was not 'done with Israel'. In Romans, Paul says,
"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! [other translations say 'God Forbid' or 'Absolutely not'.] I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." (Romans 11:1)
and later on
"As far as the Gospel is concerned, they [Israel] are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and His call are irrevocable." (11:28)
The fundamental flaw in believing that God has somehow done away with or set aside Israel in order to do something new with 'the Church' is that if God is not faithful to his promises to Israel, which he unilaterally made with Abraham and reiterated to Jacob, to Moses and to David, then what hope or assurance do we have that He would stick to whatever arrangement he has with the Church? To put it slightly differently and perhaps a little more pointedly, are those who believe that God is "done with Israel" still worshipping the same God of the Bible? To call into question God's fidelity to the people He Himself chose is, fundamentally, to question whether He is God at all. God calls himself either the 'God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' or the 'God of Israel' over 200 times in the Tanakh. It is not the name that people chose for Him, it is the name He chose for Himself. To say that God is not who He is anymore, or that He has somehow changed His mind about his plans is either to make Him into some other God, or to make some claim about God that cannot possibly be true.
Perhaps my words are too strong here, but I'm not sure. The more this stuff soaks into me, the more convinced I am that God has set things up in the way that he has Chosen. Man comes along and through fancy ideas and linguistic gymnastics, tries to say it is some other way than the way God has set it up. We all want to be at the center of the story, right? Though my conclusion may be false, my question is valid - at what point are we worshipping a different God than the God of the Bible and/or preaching a different Gospel than the one presented in the Scriptures? If we change the fundamental message, or the fundamental themes of Scripture, either to suit our own desires or to push our own agenda, then we have altered the message into something that it is not. If we then worship the thing that it is not, we are essentially worshiping some other God, a God of our own invention.
If anyone out there happens to read this and feels a desire to discuss it with me, I would love that. Normally I write for myself - but I feel like with this post, it is for someone else. Chances are if you are reading this, you know me, so just get in touch - if not, go to the Apocalyptic Accountability link on the upper right-hand side of this blog and get in touch with Marc through that website. He will put us in touch.
No comments:
Post a Comment