COLLEEN TINKER
We received an email this week, and we realized that we should share it with all our Proclamation! readers. It is not an isolated question, and all of us who leave Adventism sooner or later trip over this question: Aren’t we spiritual Israel?
Here is the letter we received:
My world got tipped on its head again this week. I am in a Zoom Bible Study Fellowship. We were studying Matthew 24 this week. At least a fourth of the group made comments on Jerusalem being rebuilt and a portion of the Jews would be saved as tribes , Rev. 7:1.
It was my understanding that we are modern-day Israel.
What gives?
You have stumbled onto one of the disorienting subjects we face as we leave Adventism and integrate into our Christian communities. Adventism taught us that we as Adventists were “spiritual Israel”, the true inheritors of the blessings of the Mosaic covenant, because we kept the law. Israel, we were taught, rejected their Messiah, and so they were rejected, deprived of the blessings they would have had if they had not rejected Jesus.
After leaving Adventism, though, we realized that not only was Adventism not spiritual Israel, but it wasn’t even part of the true church that was born on the Day of Pentecost! We had a different gospel and a different Jesus; Adventism doesn’t qualify as belonging, as an organization, to the body of Christ, much less as being spiritual Israel.
We learn another thing, though, as we study with Christians: there is a significant portion of Christianity that believes the church is “spiritual Israel”. In fact, this belief is very similar to Adventism’s belief except the arguments apply to the church in general instead of to Seventh-day Adventism. Nevertheless, we have to understand what the Bible says about Israel, about the church, and about God’s promises.
Many Christians, however, do not see the Bible teaching that the church replaces Israel. In fact, if one doesn’t bring a preconception to the reading of Scripture, it’s less likely that one would see the church as the replacement of Israel. What I have come to understand is that the underlying framework of “covenant theology” shapes the idea that the church is spiritual Israel. If the idea of covenant theology is new to you, we recently did a Former Adventist Podcast on the subject as Nikki and I interviewed our never-been-Adventist friend Jordan Quinley about his transition from being a believer in covenant theology to embracing new covenant theology. You can listen to this podcast here.
Covenant Theology and Adventism
In a nutshell, here’s a generalized summary of how I have come to understand the idea of “covenant theology” as the supportive framework for seeing the church as “spiritual Israel”. Covenant theology is the idea (much like Adventism’s view) that there is one overarching “covenant of grace” that God made with humanity. Underneath that framework He has made additions and expansions over the ages, but the result is this: the Ten Commandments remain as a rule of faith and practice for the church. Even more, covenant theology teaches that the Law (specifically the Ten Commandments) preceded Sinai and existed from eternity and applies to all humanity. (Again, does that sound familiar?!)
The notable difference between covenant theology’s view of the law and Adventism’s is how they interpret the Sabbath. Covenant theology says that the fourth commandment is now seen, on this side of the cross, as applying to Sunday, the Lord’s Day.
The notable difference between covenant theology’s view of the law and Adventism’s is how they interpret the Sabbath. Covenant theology says that the fourth commandment is now seen, on this side of the cross, as applying to Sunday, the Lord’s Day. Some believers in covenant theology even see Sunday as a sacred day that must be kept holy—this idea was taught to us as Adventists. We learned that Christians all believed that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, and that Christianity honored Sunday as a holy day like Adventists honored the Sabbath. (I personally believe that, if one insists the law is for the church, the Adventist argument is the better argument; the New Testament never says that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday!)
Not all Christians, however, hold to this view of covenant theology. Many, like the ones you apparently are encountering in your Zoom study, believe that the law was given to Israel and did not precede Sinai nor does it remain as a rule of faith and practice for the church. Instead, as we at Life Assurance Ministries believe, the law was temporary as Galatians 3:17–19 states. Thus the law was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, He Himself stated that He came not to destroy but to FULFILL the law (Mt. 5:17). Now, as the book of Hebrews emphasizes, we embrace Jesus, the reality of every shadow that the Law established. In fact, if we cling to the shadows of holy days and the Mosaic Law, we are refusing to embrace the reality of Jesus as the complete fulfillment of the covenant God made with Israel!
As Hebrews 7:12 states, with a change of the priesthood comes a change of the law also. Jesus does not have a priesthood after the likeness of Levi. Instead, He has an eternal priesthood—and the covenant of which He is the foundation is a new covenant. It is based on a NEW law, not the law God gave Israel. The New Covenant is based on what Paul calls the Law of Christ. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 9: 20–21 he says:
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. (ESV)
Even here Paul makes a distinction between the Jews and believers. He, a Jew, was no longer “under the law”; He was “under the law of Christ”. Unbelieving Jews were under the law; born-again believers in Jesus are under a new law: the law of Christ! Paul’s epistles cannot be misunderstood. The Ten Commandments (which were the very words of the Old Covenant [Ex. 34:27, 28]) are fulfilled in Jesus. They are no longer a rule of faith and practice for new covenant believers! This fact of the new covenant establishes an entirely different framework from that held by “covenant theology”.
What is right?
The idea that there is just one overarching covenant and that the Ten Commandments are added to that covenant, that they remain as the rule of faith and practice for the church, is not taught in Scripture. It is a very old tradition which some of the Reformers taught (although notably, Luther did not hold this understanding to the same degree other Reformers did), but this tradition does not flow from a contextual reading of the New Testament. If, however, one believes that the Ten Commandments continue to have authority over the church, it is a logical step to say that the church is the new Israel. The law defines Israel, and if one clings to any part of the law of the Mosaic covenant, one sees his identity differently than if one sees himself as a completely new creation in Christ.
Here we have to say emphatically: believing in covenant theology does not mean people aren’t true Christians. They correctly understand who Jesus is and what His gospel is: that He died for our sins according to Scripture, that He was buried, and that He rose on the third day according to Scripture (1 Cor. 15:3, 4). They trust Him for their justification and eternal security. Unlike Adventists, they believe that His atonement was completed on the cross and that He could not have failed or sinned! Believing in covenant theology does not make one a non-believer! It does, however, confuse the issue of the law and its role in the lives of believers, and it alters how one understands passages such as Romans 9 through 11 and Revelation 20.
Here is the bottom line: in order to understand that I had to leave Adventism and its Sabbath, I had to believe the New Testament to mean exactly what it said. I had to believe Paul when he explains in Galatians that the law—the ENTIRE law including the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments—did not exist until 430 years after Abraham, and it lasted until Jesus came (Gal. 3:17–19). I also had to believe that now, the Mosaic law is equated with slavery and is compared to Hagar the bondwoman! Believers in Jesus, however, have a heavenly Jerusalem. Our mother is not Hagar the slave but Sarah the free woman (Gal. 4:21–31).
Moreover, Israel was a nation that was governed by the terms of the conditional, temporary Mosaic covenant. The Israelites were God’s people, but they were NOT the church—and they were not considered an Old Testament church. They were Israel, and while they were saved by faith exactly as believers always have been saved, they were not permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit as new covenant believers are. In fact, Jesus explained in Acts 1 and John 16–17 that the Holy Spirit could not be poured out on believers until He broke the curse of death and ascended to His Father’s right hand. The Holy Spirit was His gift to the CHURCH, the body of Christ. Israel was never called the body of Christ. Only new covenant believers are considered Christ’s body because we are hidden with Him in God (Col. 3:3) and His Spirit permanently indwells us when we believe the gospel of our salvation (Eph. 1:13 14).
Jews and gentiles become part of the body of Christ when they believe in the finished work of the Lord Jesus for their sins, but believers do not become Israel.
Both Jews and gentiles become part of the body of Christ when they believe in the finished work of the Lord Jesus for their sins, but believers do not become Israel. Rather, what Paul describes in great detail in Romans 9 through 11 is the fact that Israel is an ethnic group that God created for His purposes, and the church is comprised of believers who trust Jesus’ finished work and are born again, grafted into the olive tree of God’s purposes.
Furthermore, Israel was a nation in whose midst God placed His visible shekinah glory. The church is not a nation; it is individuals who personally are indwelled by God Himself, and He sends the church into the nations to witness of Him! Israel and the church are completely different “bodies” and have different identities and work. In fact, even the New Jerusalem described in Revelation 21:10–14 explains that the names of the “twelve tribes of the sons of Israel” are written on the gates of the city, and the names of the twelve apostles are written on the twelve foundation stones. The church and Israel have different identities and responsibilities, even as they are represented in the New Jerusalem!
The church contains both Jews and gentiles, but the church is not under the law nor does it inherit God’s physical promises to Israel. Rather, the church receives the blessings of being born-of-God, adopted sons and daughters of God in Christ!
But what about the nation?
Paul makes a detailed argument about God’s faithfulness to His own promises. I suggest that you get a notebook and literally copy these chapters, asking God to show you what you need to know. Nestled in chapter 11 is this remarkable passage:
Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Romans 11:25–32).
God’s calling and gifts to Israel are not null and void! He will still keep His promises to them; they have not been rejected! The church is the church; Israel is Israel. This idea is very hard for people to see at first when they have believed that they are “spiritual Israel” and have held onto the idea that God rejected the nation but continued applying the law to the church. This framework, though, is simply not supported by Scripture.
So what does it mean that God has not rejected Israel?
The Bible is not detailed in how these promises will play out as He fulfills them. We do know, however, that Revelation 20 describes an earthly millennium where God’s people reign with Christ sitting on the throne over the nations. We also see that Revelation addresses the idea that God will deal with Israel and that many will come to faith as the world becomes increasingly chaotic. That passage you mentioned in Revelation 7 is best understood to mean exactly what it says: the remnant of Israel, the 144,000, are from the tribes of Israel. In fact, Old Testament prophets state that a time is coming when God will bring His people from all the tribes back to the land He gave them, and the fact that the nation of Israel exists today can only be seen as a fulfillment of God’s promises. There was no nation for nearly 2,000 years, and in one day in 1948 a nation was formed. Of course, it is not a believing nation, and we can’t see modern Israel as the completion of God’s promises, but the existence of the nation cannot be dismissed. It defies logic.
My conclusion is this: we cannot say absolutely how events in the world will play out. We can’t be adamant about the timing of events nor of any detail about which Scripture is not clear. We can know, however, that Romans clearly states that God keeps His promises, and His gifts and calling are irrevocable. He does not replace His called and chosen people with a new group of people. Rather, the church—the body of Christ—is His new covenant people. Israelites are welcome in the church, but Romans also says that Israel has been hardened in part until the full number of gentiles comes in. A day is coming when that partial hardening will be removed.
God will still keep His promises to Israel—promises which remain in the Old Testament and which have not yet been fulfilled. There is a future for Israel. God does not abandon His people, and He will yet call them to belief.
This issue of Israel and the church is not an issue we divide over. True Christians see these things in different ways. Nevertheless, the way one views God’s covenants and His promises changes the way we see the church. We are not Israel, but we are God’s sons and daughters, and we gentiles are the wild branches who are grafted into His olive tree as Romans 11 explains.
Again I suggest that you slowly read and copy Romans 9 through 11. Check the marginal references and compare the promises Paul quotes with their original context in the Old Testament. Israel was God’s nation; we are Christ’s body. Israel was not indwelled by the Holy Spirit because Jesus had not yet fulfilled the law. We believers are born of God, and just as Israel could not have foreseen the full reality of the church before Jesus came, so we today cannot foresee fully the ways God will still keep His promises to Israel. I just know that I have to believe the words mean what they say. The law is fulfilled in Jesus, and God’s promises and gifts are irrevocable. He is faithful to all His promises! †
- April 27–May 3, 2024 - April 25, 2024
- We Got Mail - April 25, 2024
- April 20–26, 2024 - April 18, 2024
Sister Tinker, what a great article!!! Love it. I just have on itsy bitsy observation; in the very last paragraph, you stated that Israel was “indwelled by the Holy Spirit because Jesus had not yet fulfilled the law”. The statement kind of confuse me because previous to the statement, you make another statement of Israel and the Holy Spirit:
“Moreover, Israel was a nation that was governed by the terms of the conditional, temporary Mosaic covenant. The Israelites were God’s people, but they were NOT the church—and they were not considered an Old Testament church. They were Israel, and while they were saved by faith exactly as believers always have been saved, they were not permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit as new covenant believers are. In fact, Jesus explained in Acts 1 and John 16–17 that the Holy Spirit could not be poured out on believers until He broke the curse of death and ascended to His Father’s right hand. The Holy Spirit was His gift to the CHURCH, the body of Christ. Israel was never called the body of Christ. Only new covenant believers are considered Christ’s body because we are hidden with Him in God (Col. 3:3) and His Spirit permanently indwells us when we believe the gospel of our salvation (Eph. 1:13 14)”.
Can you please elaborate on both statement, please?
I corrected my error in the article. The last paragraph should read that they were were NOT indwelled by the Holy Spirit because Jesus had not yet fulfilled the law.
Permit me to comment: Romans 11:25 says that Israel has been hardened in part… until the full number of gentiles comes in.
My point is the word “until”.
Psalm 112:8 “His heart is steady; he will not be afraid, until he looks in triumph on his adversaries.”
Until… does not mean his heart will afterwards become unsteady in this Psalm. Rather, it will be permanently steady.
In a similar way, may I suggest that “until” in Romans 11:25 does not necessarily predict a revival in Israel just before the Lord returns, but rather it can be understood: “a partial hardening has come upon Israel… until the end! …or, until the Lord returns in Glory.”
Of course, a significant revival in Israel in the last days just before the Eschaton is possible. But is this, like so many other prophecies, a conditional prophecy? Does it have to happen? And looking back on Israel’s track record, don’t hold your breath! It would be a wonderful thing of course but I maintain it doesn’t ‘have’ to happen.
Lets be careful… delivered from Adventism, let’s not fall into the errors of Premillennial Dispensationalism.
Thank you for your article and all your hard work.
I can’t be dogmatic about HOW or WHEN God’s promises will be fulfilled. I just know that if He says something is so, He will do it. The Mosaic covenant was the only conditional covenant in Scripture. It was a two-way agreement between God and man, and because Israel was involved in agreeing on the covenant, their flawed human promises determined whether or not they would receive the blessings the covenant promised. The nature of the Mosaic covenant was: blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience. All of God’s other promises which He unilaterally made to people are unconditional because no flawed human promises/agreements are involved. God’s promises are always unconditional unless He states a condition.
Romans 11 continues onward from verse 25 and states, in verses 28-29, that Israelites “are beloved for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” This statement is made AFTER Israel rejected the Messiah and just prior to their diaspora after the destruction of Jerusalem. It is an unconditional statement that Paul makes. God’s promises to Israel were not ALL contained in the Mosaic covenant! He made promises to Abraham and to David that were not specifically part of the Mosaic covenant, and they were not conditional. The prophets also made promises to Israel that were not part of the Mosaic covenant—promises which God stated and are not conditional because no human was involved in agreeing and covenanting. God’s promises are certain.
God has made promises to Israel, and Paul states that God’s calling and gifts are irrevocable.
I believe the biggest issue about how to understand the OT promises is the hermeneutic one uses.
Regarding the “dreaded” premillennial dispensationalism: I cannot get on board with any single system of theology. I believe I have to read Scripture using normal rules of grammar and vocabulary, and context and word meanings are everything. Several years ago I asked our pastor Gary Inrig how to think about the “dispensational” label that seemed to generate as much resentment among former Adventists as does the label “Calvinism”. I am sharing below Gary’s written response to me. I found it helpful:
“The issue of the future of Israel is, as you’ve discovered, one that is
hotly debated, and I can hardly deal with it extensively. But there are
several things to note.
“1. The connection of the issue with dispensationalism is a red herring.
While dispensationalists certainly believe in a restoration of national
Israel, the idea certainly didn’t originate with them.
Postmillennialists such as Jonathan Edwards were speaking of such a
thing a hundred years before. Premillennialism has a far more ancient
heritage than that.
“2. The entire issue is tinged with a sad history of anti-Semitism on the
part of the Christian church, that has roots back into the early church.
The Jewish rejection of Christ, the Jewish revolt in the second century
and the desire of early Christians to distance themselves from the
Jewish people led to a spiritualizing and de-Judaizing of the Biblical
record. Sadly, this led to replacement theology and a “supercessionist”
viewpoint (the church gets Israel’s blessings; they get to keep the
curses) which bedeviled “Christian” theology down through the centuries.
Much of what was done by Christians to Jews was utterly shameful.
“3. The modern secular nation of Israel remains in a state of unbelief
and rebellion against God, just as the United States, Canada and all
nations do. The time of national salvation has not come. That means that
Christians cannot and ought not mindlessly defend Israel’s actions. But
the reemergence of the nation after 1900 years of dispersion is a
remarkable event, especially in the light of OT promises, that it is
foolish to deny.
“4. It is well and good to be suspicious of the novel. However, the
ultimate question must be, Is it Biblical? After all, some of those who
most ardently profess the novelty of dispensationalism ardently defend
the Reformation or Reformed theology, which are only 250 years earlier.
The fact is, as James Orr showed in a book called The Progress of Dogma,
certainly issues have come to the forefront in Christian history at
different points in history. So the deity of Christ and the Trinity were
of central importance in the early centuries, and then concern shifted
to the nature of the person of Christ (what did it mean that he was God
and man). Issues of the nature of the church formed the next period
(with sad conclusions), and soteriology came to the fore during the
Reformation. Eschatology wasn’t on the front burners for most until the
18th and 19th centuries.”
I do not feel dogmatic about the details of HOW and WHEN things will occur; Scripture is not detailed. But I do believe I have to take these words to mean what they are saying. I think the hardest things for us “formers” is to think that there might be another “age” in the future before the new heavens and the new earth. Yet the New Testament does seems to describe such an era, and it does seem to say that God will yet do for Israel what only He can do. Of COURSE individuals will have to come to faith in Him as all people have to. There are never two ways of salvation! But the fact that God keeps ALL His promises in Christ, even to Israel, is a guarantee that He will keep His promises to me as well. I am open to being surprised as these things come about. I am not “married” to a particular scenario. But I am certain I can trust the words of Scripture!
Hi, Colleen. I have a few comments on this particular question, especially since I was mentioned by name in the post. I should go on record as affirming that the church is indeed “spiritual Israel.” By this I mean that the church is the true, spiritual people of God which fulfills the temporary picture of the people of God that was the nation of Israel. I should also say that, while there are variations within New Covenant Theology, one of its consistent points is that the church is the eschatological Israel. That is to say, the church, through union with Christ, is an antitype in respect to things for which Israel was only a type. If that’s a bridge too far for you, your view is probably more in lign with progressive dispensationalism than NCT.
Is God still saving Jews? Of course! He has not abandoned his people whom he foreknew. Will there be a sweeping gospel revival among Jews before the end ot time? Maybe. I’m not so sure. I don’t see it as necessary. Is God going to replant the nation of Israel in the land of Canaan in fulfillment of the land and restoration promises and have the temple rebuilt and the sacrificial system reestablished in fulfillment of Ezekiel’s vision, in order to deal with them once again as his special possession? Definitely not! The reason is that in Christ, all the types and shadows are fulfilled and done away with.
You spend a good chunk of the article articulating that the Law has come to an end and does not outlast the Mosaic administration. As you know, I totally agree with that. This is because, in the New Covenant, Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. Thus the tutor is no longer needed, since the people of God, as newly constituted, have reached maturity. But Jesus not only fulfilled the Law. He was the object to which all the signs pointed, and those included the temple, the sacrificial system, the festivals, the Sabbath, and, yes, even the nation of Israel itself. It is Jesus himself who is the true Israel—the true obedient son. (Recommended reading: Abraham’s Four Seeds by John Reisenger.)
There is a significant difference in how NCT and Covenant Theology understand the link between Israel and the church. This is worth mentioning. CT reads the church back into the Old Covenant, so that they would say that Israel was the church (in infant form). NCT affirms that the church is a new entity, constituted through union with Christ in the New Covenant. It did not begin till Pentecost. However, NCT sees that the New Testament teaches that Jesus himself is the fulfillment of Israel.
CT: Israel ↔ Church
NCT: Israel → Jesus → Church
The church, then, is the spiritual Israel only through union with Christ. In him, the church is the recipient of all the promises (2 Cor 1:20), including the promises to Abraham regarding land, seed, and blessing, and including the promises of national restoration. There is nothing left for national Israel. The church gets it all. It is the church that is joint heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), and Christ gets it all (Heb 1:2). The church is the seed of Abraham, the body whose head is the singular Seed of Abraham. (Recommended reading: The Abrahamic Promises in Galatians by Blake White.) The New Covenant is the exhaustive fulfillment of all previous covenants! Thus the New Covenant (made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” i.e., us, according to Heb 8) is the channel through which all God’s blessings are funneled in these last days. There is a whole lot of language applied to Israel in the Old transfered to the church in the New (see 1 Pet 2:9 for starters).
Needless to say, I think you misread the visionary language in Revelation 7 as well as the implications of Romans 9–11. But I can’t discuss all this in a comment. Maybe we could have coffee sometime :-). Finally, I will just say that much of this difference is due to hermeneutical principles. Your view is likely to stress a historical-grammatical interpretation of prophetic and promise texts given in the Old Testament. The idea here is that these promises should be understood in the same sense the original hearers would have understood them. NCT sees that the New Testament often reinterprets the OT language (the language of the picture) in terms of its NT reality, and that this apostolic interpretation is authoritative. This would be a redemptive-historical interpretive matrix that factors in a passage’s place in redemptive history. God keeps his promises to Israel. No question. The only disagreement is how that will happen and who is the beneficiary.
Jordan, I appreciate your response. I did not intend to misrepresent you, and I’m glad you explained your position.
I believe that your observation in your last paragraph sums up the differences in our perspectives: “I think you misread the visionary language in Revelation 7 as well as the implications of Romans 9–11. But I can’t discuss all this in a comment. Maybe we could have coffee sometime :-). Finally, I will just say that much of this difference is due to hermeneutical principles. Your view is likely to stress a historical-grammatical interpretation of prophetic and promise texts given in the Old Testament. The idea here is that these promises should be understood in the same sense the original hearers would have understood them. NCT sees that the New Testament often reinterprets the OT language (the language of the picture) in terms of its NT reality, and that this apostolic interpretation is authoritative. This would be a redemptive-historical interpretive matrix that factors in a passage’s place in redemptive history.”
This differences between hermeneutical principles explains the differences between our conclusions, I believe. I have often written and talked about my use of the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture. Using this method, I see the context of the text determining the meaning of individual verses. Grammar and vocabulary reveal the intention of the Author; I cannot assume that I can interpret the text of Scripture to mean something other than the Author meant any more than I can assume the meaning of a science or history textbook means something other than its author meant.
To be sure, the author of a science or of a history text may be wrong; I have to evaluate the meanings of those books according to data and evidence. Nevertheless, I cannot interpret those books to derive a meaning from them that the author did not mean. If the author was wrong, I have to dismiss the book as not authoritative, but I don’t have permission to interpret the writing to say something the author did not intend to say.
The Author of Scripture, however, is ultimately God Himself. Since God is sovereign, is my Creator, and cannot lie, I have to believe that what He has revealed through His chosen writers/prophets is His will and word. God is not my peer whom I can evaluate as if He were on an equal footing with me, and I do not have the right to interpret His book to say what He did not directly say. In other words, even if there are things in His Book that seem to disagree with each other, I am not able to try to “fix” His meaning by assigning a new meaning or interpretive grid to His word so it makes more sense. I am only able to submit to His word and to ask Him to show me what is real and true. Often I have to live with a certain tension since God does not explain how His declarations of truth fit together, but I know that He knows and sees all, and I can trust Him even if I cannot explain Him.
By contrast with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, the historical-redemptive (RH) hermeneutic applies an interpretive grid over the words of Scripture. This grid looks for Christ and Redemption in every verse of Scripture. In other words, using this method, every verse must be interpreted to reveal typology about Jesus and the plan of redemption. For example, the death of Achan in the book of Joshua, when he was discovered to have secretly taken spoils from the war after Israel was told to take nothing, can be interpreted according to RH as foreshadowing the death of Jesus for human sin. Yet the story of Achan in context is not foreshadowing Jesus.
The historical-redemptive hermeneutic is not reading Scripture using the normal rules of grammar and vocabulary and context in order to understand the Author’s meaning. It is, rather, assigning an assumption—a worldview, if you will—that provides an interpretive grid to all of the Bible. Yet this grid allows one to change the meaning of the passages to fit our understanding rather than adjusting our understanding to fit the meanings revealed by the normal grammatical rules.
We read all other books using a historical-grammatical method; we are not allowed to create typologies or allegories to apply to passages in science, math, or history books with which we disagree. I do not believe we can apply typologies or allegories to the plain words of Scripture, either, without changing God’s intended meanings.
This paragraph from the book Understanding End Times Prophecy by Paul N. Benware sums up my understanding of how to read the Bible:
“It is essential, therefore, to have this literal mind-set as we approach the prophetic Word of God. Without it there is no reliable check on an interpretation, and the interpreter becomes the final authority. If in Genesis 17:8 the land of Canaan does not refer to a specific piece of real estate in the Middle East, to what does it refer? Can it refer to heaven or the church? Such ideas would come from outside the text of Genesis 17:8. But when such spiritualizing or allegorizing takes place, the interpretation is no longer grounded in fact, and the text becomes putty in the hand of the interpreter” (p. 25).
Again, I do not believe that the body of Christ should divide over these differences. A great many Christians understand these things similarly to the way you do, Jordan, and I do believe our hermeneutics are the explanation for these differences. I respect you and value your thoughtful scholarship. Again, thank you for sharing your perspective and clearing up the confusion I may have created about your own views!