LOOK INSIDE AT AMAZON : https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B088X3ZJBR
--------------------------------------
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL - FOR SAMPLE ONLY. EXCERPTS FROM “PREFACE” AND “INTRODUCTION”
COMMONWEALTH THEOLOGY ESSENTIALS
All rights reserved. This book sample (preview) or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations. Copyright © 2020 by Commonwealth of Israel Foundation, Phoenix.
Begin Excerpt:COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL - FOR SAMPLE ONLY. EXCERPTS FROM “PREFACE” AND “INTRODUCTION”
COMMONWEALTH THEOLOGY ESSENTIALS
Enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles—
the “Nations” —was never part of God’s plan. “Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a
thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore
the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that
You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth’” (Isaiah 49:6).
On the part of the Jews: First-century
Jews perceived that being chosen as God’s special people established their exclusive
right to God’s promises. Even the Apostles were, at first, shortsighted and reticent
to participate in the inclusion of the Gentiles. It took an angelic intervention
and the judgment of the Jerusalem elders before the Church opened its assembly to
non-Jews (see Acts 11).
On the part of the Gentiles: Most
first-century Gentile believers belonged geographically, ergo politically, to the
Roman Empire. Bound up in the patriotic spirit of the day was the attitude that
the Jewish people were contrary and contentious. This anti-Jewish bias was reinforced
and formalized as a result of the first and second “Jewish revolts.”
This anti-Semitic Roman patriotism
influenced the theology of the Early Church Fathers; especially in the Latin Church
where Gnosticism had migrated from North Africa and infiltrated the church. Eastern
Dualism underpinned the notion that biblical theology consisted of two camps: The
spiritual Church, and the earthly Jews. Neo-Platonists like Marcion of Sinope rejected
the Old Testament, the “Jewish Gospels,” and even the Creator God of the Old Testament.
Christianity remained headquartered
in the capitals of the East and West Roman Empires for 1,000 years, establishing
a voluminous body of anti-Semitic comments by the “Church Fathers.” By the time
of the Reformation, theologians presumed that the longstanding separation of the
Church from the Jews found its basis in the Scriptures. Dispensational Theology,
although kinder in spirit toward the Jews, separated the Church from the Jews by
hypothesizing a variety of partitions of time, space, and divine relationships.
How could mainline theologians have
missed the correct method of interpreting Bible prophecy? And, for nearly 2,000
years! This proposition doesn’t seem likely – or even possible. But the current
state of world politics provides an ideal backdrop to explain how doctrines regarding
the relationship between Israel and the Church shifted during the second century.
Reflect for a moment on the impassioned
opposition between the left and right political parties of twenty-first century
America. How much room for true objectivity is there in the hearts and minds of
multi-generational Republicans or Democrats? It would seem based on the news broadcast
from networks— which are as divergent as their respective audiences— there is little
objectivity indeed. Now place yourself in the Roman Empire of the second century.
Remember, the Roman Empire didn’t consist merely of the West, controlled by the
western capital at Rome; but also of the eastern regions, ruled from Constantinople.
Practically everywhere the Early Church spread— apart from Thomas’ mission to India—
was part of the Roman Empire; which by the way, officially included Judea.
Consider further that most of the
areas belonging to the Roman Empire were no longer in rebellion, but were settled
in and enjoying the peace – Pax Romana. Whether you were a Jew or a Christian or
both; or, a slave or a Roman citizen; in any case you were a Roman. Now take that
“Proud to be an American” (or transfer that zeal to whatever country the reader
calls their homeland) and add to that the zeal of political passion. Then project
that emotion-driven attitude into New-Testament times. From the time the Jews asked for Rome’s involvement,
Israel’s civil strife —including the added tension between the Maccabees[i]
and factions opposed to Rome’s presence— Rome found defending the Jews to be a
futile endeavor. Now aside from the fact that the World will always persecute
God’s people, Israel’s bloody internal wars over rulership, between the
Sadducees and Pharisees, between the Zealots and the Peace Movement, etc., made
Israel impossible to partner with.
By the time of Christ, Rome had
“had it up to here” with the Jews; which is clearly reflected by the tensions
documented in the New Testament. Then, add to this tinderbox two successive
Jewish revolts against Rome. As the second century began, the Jews were driven
out of the Land. The country of Judea was now officially an “enemy of the
state.” Second-Temple era Israel was held in contempt; and, being Jewish in the
Roman Empire was like being German or Japanese at the end of WWII. Awkward!
The second century was the time
when Church Fathers began to speak of the Jews in a derogatory light. And, such
mudslinging against the Jews seemed to the Christian Romans to be quite
politically correct. Shortly after this time was when Origin began to
spiritualize the prophecies about the future restoration of Israel; not as a
gathering to the Land, but every other kind of figurative gathering of
“saints,” on earth or in the heavens. The “world-rulers” (Eph. 6:12) played no
small part in empowering Rome and belittling Judea. According to church
historian Philip Schaff, the old Roman nobility never lost their vision of Rome
as the center for earthly rule; and weren’t the least interested in that center
moving to Jerusalem at ANY time in future. “The political pre-eminence of that
metropolis of the world . . . was destined to rule the European races with the
sceptre of the cross, as she had formerly ruled them with the sword.”[ii]
Thus, the first contortions of
Eschatology were committed rather shortly after the time of Jesus and the
Apostles. Unfortunately, other than condemning Rome, the Reformer’s theology
didn’t fall far from the tree. That is, in a nutshell, why mainline theologies,
Catholic/Orthodox, Reformed, and Evangelical, must be realigned with Old
Testament Scripture and with the doctrine of the Apostles found in New
Testament: Not in the doctrines of the “Early” Church Fathers, no matter how
close to the second century these doctrines were formed.
One of the most convincing
features of Commonwealth Theology’s eschatology is its ability to provide a
clearer interpretation of more prophetic verses than today’s popular
theologies. Catholic/Orthodox theologies tend to spiritualize many passages
that should be interpreted literally – admittedly, there are some legitimately
figurative passages. Very often, however, when verses are taken literally by
the Supersessionists, the meanings are expropriated from the Twelve Tribes to
the Gentile Church. Dispensational Theology, although interpreting verses more
literally than the Supersessionists, insists on parsing passages —even
midstream— and distributing the segments to the “correct” dispensational age.
CT, on the other hand, is able to interpret the Bible just as it is written.[iii]
Why is this incredibly substantial
truth of Commonwealth Theology just now breaking upon both Jew and Christian?[iv] If
it were so vitally important, wouldn’t we have seen it long before this time? That
inquiry in and of itself validates the prophetic consummation of the age–we’re “seeing
it now” because on an eschatological plane it was prophesied to take place in the
“latter days and years” (Jer. 30:3, 24–spoken to both Israel and Judah; Ezek. 38:8)
. . . “In the latter days you will consider it” (Jer. 30:24). Indeed: “Is Ephraim
My dear son? Is he a pleasant child? For though I spoke against him, I earnestly
remember him still, therefore My heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy
on him, says the LORD . . . and that He might make known the riches of His glory
on the vessels of mercy; which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom
He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Nations?” As He says also in Hosea:
“I will call them My people, who were not My people; and her beloved, who was not
beloved . . . and it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God” (Jer.
31:20; Romans 9:23-26; Hosea 2:23; 1:10).
Yet, today, we of Ephraim—we who
were no longer a people, but now are the people of God—have come from the four
corners of the earth to provoke Judah to jealousy whereby the Spirit of God’s
breath will breathe life into these VERY dry bones . . . and they too shall
come to life! Joseph, who is the Stick of Ephraim, is making his move upon
Judah. Joseph can no longer contain himself—so great is his emotion toward his
brethren according to the flesh for God will “pour on the house of David and on
the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they
will look on Me, the pierced one. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns
for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn” (Zechariah
12:10).[v]
Introduction
Why Study
the Commonwealth of Israel?
T
|
he authors, along with a growing Commonwealth of
Israel community, believe they have rediscovered a vital aspect of Biblical
Theology. An aspect of the gospel that is crucial in establishing peace between
the Jews and the Nations. Paul’s narrative on the “Commonwealth of Israel”
(Ephesians 2:12), attributes peace between the Jews and “you Gentiles” through
the blood and the cross of Christ. In contrast to the “peace with God,” that is
associated with individual salvation throughout the New Testament, this peace
is peace between two ethnic groups. Individual peace AND this “national” peace
were both accomplished through the cross! And, not only national peace, but
union: that God “might create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.”
The parties of this union, however, are not the entities one
would anticipate after reading the Old Testament. There it was prophesied that
the Jews (House of Judah) and the House of Israel would be gathered and united.
Moreover, they were the expressly intended parties to the New Covenant: “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31). Hosea
prophesied: “The children of Judah
and the children of Israel shall be
gathered together, and appoint for themselves one head” (Hos. 1:11). Ezekiel
reiterated this prophecy: “Thus says the Lord God: ‘Surely I will take the stick of Joseph...Ephraim [aka. House of Israel]...and I will join them ... with
the stick of Judah, and make them one
stick, and they will be one in My hand’... ‘And one king shall be king over
them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided
into two kingdoms again’” (Excerpts from Ezekiel 37).
So how is it that, instead of the House of Israel, “you
Gentiles” (ethnōn, “Nations”) have
been united with the Jews? And: What happened to the House of Israel aka.
Ephraim, Samaria, the Northern Ten Tribes/Israel)? Some have attempted to
satisfy these questions by presuming the two houses of Israel had already
united prior to the time of Paul’s writing. But consider the extent of the
House of Israel’s punishment. According to Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin
birth of Immanuel, Ephraim would be shattered and “not a people” within 65
years after the prophecy was written (Isa. 7:8). Consider also the extent of
the Northern Kingdom’s banishment among the nations (Hos. 8:7-9). The ancient
House of Israel was deported, scattered, mixed with the nations; and (as will
be thoroughly demonstrated), by that name, has never to this day reassembled as
a whole.
Paul, in fact, did not disavow the House of Israel by
interchanging its identity with the believing Gentiles. Twice, within the
Ephesians Two passage, Paul refers to the members of the Commonwealth as those
“near” and those “far off.” “But now in Christ Jesus you [Gentiles] who once
were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (v13). “And He came
and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were afar off and to those who were
near” (v17). It would appear that Paul had gone out his way to identify those
near and far by incorporating the associations established in Daniel 9:7: “To
the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel, those near
and those far off in all the countries to which You [God] have driven them.”
Herein, “near” refers to Judah and its capital, and “far” refers to all Israel dwelling
among the other countries – among the nations. (The next section of the
Introduction will show that “all Israel” can also mean the territories of
northern Israel, that is, the House of Israel/Ephraim.)
Why would Paul draw this association between the “believers
among the nations” (Gentiles) and the House of Israel dispersed among the
nations? Obviously, they were both “among the nations.” But before exploring
this interrelationship further, consider the magnitude of what has been
presented thus far:
- Prophecies of gathering and uniting the two houses of Israel could never have been fulfilled unless the “Lost” House of Israel, which once was “not a people,” could somehow once more become “a people”;
- Ephesians Chapter Two introduces a peace and unity between two specific ethnicities, one of these being the anticipated House of Judah (the Jews);
- This national peace and unity – just as individual salvation – depended on Christ’s atoning sacrifice.
The concurrence between the restoration of the Commonwealth
and the mission of Messiah was predicted in Isaiah’s Light to Gentiles
prophecy:
Indeed He says,
“It is too small a thing that You
should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of
Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the
Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the
ends of the earth.” (Isa. 49:6)
This synchrony between the restoration of the Lost House of
Israel and the “inclusion” of the Nations (Gentiles) was all part of God’s plan
from the beginning: “Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).
At the time God told Abram he would be called Abraham, God
said: “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of
many nations” (Gen. 17:4). What is translated in the NKJV as “many nations”
reads in the Greek Septuagint “plethous ethnon”
(πλήθους ἐθνῶν), literally: “multitude of nations.” [Strong’s 4128. pléthos
company, multitude. From pletho; a fulness]. English translators of the new
Testament have traditionally rendered the Greek word, “ethnos (nation)” as “Gentile.” If the same treatment were applied
to an English translation of the Septuagint, we would read: “you shall be a
father of many Gentiles” (or literally; a multitude of Gentiles). Disregarding
translation inconsistencies, the truth of this statement was clearly understood
by Paul: “...to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”
(Rom. 4:16). “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed...” (Gal. 3:29)
God’s plan to reach the Nations continued through Ephraim.
“Ephraim” means “fruitful” or “expansion;” and was often used as a moniker to
represent the whole House of Israel. Joseph blessed Ephraim with the words:
“Let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Gen. 48:16); and,
“his descendants shall become a multitude of nations” [LXX: plethos ethnon; πλῆθος ἐθνῶν] (Gen.
48:19). Now consider that “Jezreel” – also representative of the Northern
Kingdom – means “God will sow;” and, that God sowed (scattered) the House of
Israel among the nations: “I will sow them among the peoples, and they shall
remember Me in far countries” (Zech. 10:9). Paul even used the same Old
Testament phrase in his Greek writing to describe this expansion – this
process: “...blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Nations (pleroma ton ethnon; πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν –
“multitude of nations”) has come in. And so all Israel will be saved...” (Rom.
11:25-26).
Just who “all Israel” refers to in the verse above will be
discussed in later chapters. Likewise, the ambiguity of the term, “Israel,”
will be addressed in the next section; e.g., was the “Israel,” which was
blinded in part, the same “Israel” – or part of “all Israel” – that would be
saved?
In any case, Paul’s reference to this “fullness/multitude of
nations” is immediately expounded by quoting Isaiah: “The Deliverer will come
out of [to] Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is My
covenant with them...” The phrase, “when I take away their sins” is inserted by
Paul. But what actually follows in this passage from the Isaiah Scroll is the declarations:
“For your light has come!” and “the Gentiles (Nations) [LXX; ethnae, ἔθνη] shall
come to your light” (Isa. 60:1, 3).
Just as in Ephesians, Paul links the inclusion of the
Nations with the work of Messiah. And when would this inclusion take place?
“When (at the time) I take away their (Jacob’s)
sins.” WAIT! WHAT? Just as the real problem from the perspective of Replacement
Theology was never the identity of the Nations, but peace and unity with the
“rejected” Jews; likewise, neither does this timing of events line up with
Dispensational Theology. (Much will be said about these theological divergences
throughout this book.)
Nevertheless, Paul’s writings would have made perfect sense
to anyone reading the “Bible” in its original languages (primarily Hebrew and
Greek). Some first-century readers (especially those living in or around
Jerusalem) would have read from the Hebrew scrolls of the Tanakh. But the New
Testament was written in Greek because Greek was the common (koine) language of the Roman Empire. So
common in fact, that most Jews and Gentiles would have read from the Greek
Septuagint – the version written BY those
scattered among the nations, FOR those
scattered among the nations.
Reading both the Hebrew “Writings” and the New Testament in
the same Greek language would have made ALL of theology much simpler. Take, for
instance, the deity of Christ. The Hebrew translators translated the Name, “Jehovah” into the Greek as “Lord.” So
when Elijah brought fire down on the altar (1 Kings 18:39) all the people
shouted, kurios estin o theos (κύριός
ἐστιν ὁ θεός – “the Lord is God”). An English literal translation of the Hebrew
would read, “Jehovah is the Elohim.” Furthermore, the writers of the
New Testament referred to Jesus as this same “Kurios”: Κύριος Ἰησοῦς. Now,
if you confess, “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9) – if you believe Jesus is the same
Lord (Jehovah) of the Writings – you
will be saved. Deity question solved! Along with two-thirds of the Trinity.
But there’s more revealed by studying the Commonwealth of
Israel than surprises found in the ancient languages. Moreover, Commonwealth
Theology’s focus is not SO narrow that it is limited to investigating the lost
House of Israel. The whole of biblical eschatology is clarified when the
members of the Commonwealth and their prophetic roles are properly identified
in Scripture.
Better Theology – Not a Different Gospel
Those taking an interest in the plight of the two houses of
Israel (a topic avoided by mainline denominations) have quickly observed that
the House of Israel was scattered among the nation and designated “not a
people” long before the House of Judah was carried away to Babylon. The modern
quest for the Lost House of Israel by both Messianic and “Gentile” groups have
led some to adopt aberrant theological positions. The authors and advocates of
Commonwealth Theology are fully aware of these wanderings from the faith; and
therefore, submit the following disclaimer:
Commonwealth Theology is not a departure from the “Apostles’
doctrine” (Acts 2:42), “the faith once delivered” (Jude v3), nor is it a
“different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). Commonwealth Theology (CT) honors the
Christology and understanding of the Godhead codified in the early Christian
creeds. Furthermore, Commonwealth Theology (as will be discussed later) is not
affiliated with any exclusive “Identity” cult, nor does it emphasize genetic
lineage concerning God’s people who have been “scattered among the nations.”
Some people, from the House of Judah (viz. Jews), might be able to trace their
descent from a particular tribe; some might “feel” strongly that they are
Jewish; or, they might be converts to Judaism. The VERY SAME variety of
identification may be applied by those from the scattered HOUSE OF ISRAEL (viz.
the Ten Northern Tribes). Commonwealth Theology respects God’s prerogative to
choose/bless separate and distinct groups of people. (Even in heaven, tribes
and nations will retain their distinction.) Therefore, CT does not encourage,
or even suggest, that one group should be converted to another.
The concept of “Commonwealth” wherein there abides
distinction but not separation is readily seen in today’s “British Commonwealth
of Nations.” Here, for example, Nigeria is a member of the British Commonwealth
of Nations; however, it maintains its distinction as the nation of Nigeria.
Nigeria is not separated from the British Commonwealth of Nations – she is a
full-fledged member, but wholly maintains her national identity as distinct
nation. The question, of course, is this:
Does Nigeria enjoy the benefits of the British Commonwealth? All members
of the British Commonwealth of Nations recognize the King or Queen of Great
Britain – whereas, Ireland, most certainly does NOT recognize the British Royal
Family nor are they members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
“Mixed with the nations” means “mixed.” No one people or
nation on earth today can claim THEY are the one-and-only House of Israel. One
the other hand, after nearly three thousand years of “mixing,” it is likely
that nearly everyone on earth carries some genes from the lost House of Israel.
Because CT is a refinement of Christian theology and not a religion, the
response by those who would identify with the House of Israel is left to the
individual. At a minimum, a “believer among the nations” should begin genuinely
to embrace Messiah’s peace between the two houses and anticipate the prophesied
glory of the United Kingdom of David. Others who have identified with the
Northern Kingdom have chosen varying degrees of Torah observance and
Messianic-style worship. The goal of Commonwealth Theology is to present the
truth. The outcome belongs to the Lord! Indeed:
“Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5)… “let us
therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual
edification” (Rom. 14:19 – NIV)… “So whatever you believe about these things
(viz. diet, days, etc.) keep between yourself and God” (Rom. 14:22 – NIV).
Commonwealth Theology’s distinction from mainline Christian
theology is narrowly focused on the question: What constitutes the Commonwealth
of Israel? How then could this nigh single expression (Commonwealth of Israel: τῆς
πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ), which appears only twice in the Bible—once in the Bible
(twice is the word Commonwealth or its colloquial interpretation, “Freedom,”
used)—wherein the word Commonwealth is derived from the word polity; to wit:
Strong’s G#4174: or a “legal jurisdiction or
administration” – Politeia signifies (1) “the relation in which a citizen
stands to the state, the condition of a citizen, citizenship,” Acts 22:28,
“with a great sum obtained I this freedom.” While Paul’s “citizenship of Tarsus
was not of advantage outside that city, yet his Roman “citizenship” availed
throughout the Roman Empire and, besides private rights, included (a) exemption
from all degrading punishments; (1b) a right to appeal to the emperor after a
sentence; (1c) a right to be sent to Rome for trial before the emperor if
charged with a capital offense. It is also (2) “a civil polity, the condition
of a state, a commonwealth,” said of Israel, Eph.2:12.
Consequently, can a biblical term employed so infrequently
merit a school of theology in its name? Consider that Paul applied this unique
term to declare the impact of Christ’s sacrifice upon Israel’s historical
division. Yet this fulfillment of extensive national prophecies is so neglected
by mainstream theologies as to leave a gaping void which reduces the import of
the Old Testament to a few inspirational stories and “portable” promises.
(Portable in that promises made specifically to national Israel are often
expropriated to the “individual” with little regard for their original
context.)
The ramifications of Paul’s “Commonwealth” toward
comprehending the rest of the “Greatest Story Ever Told” are extensive enough
that Paul himself elaborated on this Commonwealth throughout the first five
chapters of Ephesians. Furthermore, allusions are made to the concept of the
Commonwealth (e.g. Freedom found in
Acts 22:28) by Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, in his other epistles, and by
other New Testament writers. Indeed, once the Commonwealth of Israel is
discerned it becomes recognizable throughout the Bible as both the sum of God’s
chosen people and an integral aspect of Christ’s peace won by the cross. Thus,
the seemingly narrow lens of Commonwealth Theology broadens the Bible student’s
perspective to consider and rightly divide hundreds of passages that have been
overlooked or misapplied by other theologies. The insights shared by Paul in
Ephesians regarding the Commonwealth are nothing short of the revelation of the
mystery of Christ and His Church (Eph. 5:32). Thus, CT’s broader understanding
of Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Testament may have been the very panorama
Paul had in view when he prayed that the eyes of the understanding of God’s
people be enlightened, that they may know what is the hope of His calling, and what
are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints (Eph. 1:18).
Indeed, despite the uniqueness of its name, Commonwealth
Theology offers significant value to the everyday believer. CT reveals and
magnifies God’s dealing with Israel far beyond the superficial treatment
rendered by mainline theologies. True understanding how God has dealt with
Israel – the full story – builds confidence in God’s love, assurance of His
faithfulness, and trust in His righteous justice. CT also establishes a more
proximate connection to the fathers (and mothers) of the faith found in the
Hebrew Scriptures; thereby, enabling the believer to experience such spiritual
family ties to the saints of old – the great and surrounding cloud of witnesses
– as to run the race of faith with endurance (Heb. 12:1).
In addition, Commonwealth Theology directly impacts
Judeo-Christian relations today, as well as Judeo-Christian expectations for
the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the future. This occurs supernaturally as
the Spirit of Truth who leads into all truth corrects the false dialogue that
has inadvertently strengthened the very wall of separation which was broken
down by Christ. A wall that now exists solely in the minds of men who have been
trained by the forces of politics, time, and tradition to resist the peace
already accomplished by the cross. We will discuss how Zechariah’s prophecy of
the “two staffs” (Beauty [Grace] and Bonds [Unity]) found in Zechariah 11:7-17
were initial expressions abolishing that “wall of separation” but how disunity
between Judah and Israel (i.e., “I might break the brotherhood between Judah
and Israel”—Zech.11:15), once again, erected that separating wall through
“false shepherds” led by the “foolish” or “worthless” shepherd (Zech.
11:15-17). (The workings of these forces of deception will be greatly expanded
in the course of this volume.)
Just who is the intended audience for the revelation of this
new theology? Is this a casual book for the layman or a scholastic reference
for the clergyman? Confessedly, this document is crafted for “thinking
theologians”—later, more “laymen-oriented text” will be forthcoming. We
purposefully wish to alter “thought leaders” in this quest of theological
disclosure. And, what inroads do the authors realistically expect this volume
to make into the time-honored tenets of the world’s largest religion? Can the
scriptural evidence for this alternative theology be so compelling as to
prevail over Ironside’s maxim?: “What is new is not true, and what is true is
not new.”[vi] Notwithstanding, it will be demonstrated in
the course of study that Commonwealth Theology is not something new at all but
IS in fact the Apostles’ doctrine which was unwittingly, or somewhat
purposefully, obscured. It is at the very core of Jesus’ revelation of His
entitlement as “the Christ, the Son of the living God” wherein He uttered His
all-inclusive, all-embracing statement in response to Peter’s declaration: “I
will build My EKKLESIA, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”
(Matt. 16:16, 18).
Considering the audience and their response to this work
provides an opportunity to introduce a dynamic which was the subject of a
separate book by Chris Steinle and is incorporated in Dr. Gavin Finley’s
chapter on the Breach of Jeroboam. It is both a social and personal dynamic.
This dichotomy asserts its influence on society, politics, – and, pertinent to
theology – religion: Namely, the seeming antinomies of Individualism and
Authority; of Freedom vs. Obedience. No plainer (relatively recent) example of
this dynamic’s influence on religion can be exhibited than the Protestant
Reformation. It was not that Luther and the likes consciously set out as
individualists; encouraged, inadvertently so, by Luther’s emphasis upon the
“priesthood of all believers.” Indeed, this “discovery” should have mitigated
against such “individualism” with the emphasis upon the “priesthood of all.”
But the Reformation did bring such scrutiny upon the rights of both the
institution and the individual that a compromise was demanded and settled in
the Peace of Westphalia.
No, we have not strayed from our inquiry about the book’s
prospective audience. There are two basic types of religious authority
structures accommodating two types of followers. Therefore, the reader
predisposed to examine the claims of Commonwealth Theology might come from
unanticipated sources. It can be observed (by the openness of discussion on
bulletin boards and online groups) that Christians who believe their salvation
is heavily dependent on their affiliation with a particular institution are far
less threatened by discussing a wide range of doctrinal ideas (including the
often contradictory writings of the Church Fathers). This also seems to be the
case with the Jew, who is “Jewish” because of his ancestral heritage. These
prospective readers might be interested and open to reading about a new
theological slant without feeling the least bit threatened that they might
encounter some epiphany by which they might lose their faith. They have no
desperate need to know if they have missed some biblical truth and, therefore,
might be reading out of mere curiosity.
The Christian who believes he or she is saved solely by
faith in the God presented in the Bible will obviously place paramount
importance on the correct interpretation of the Bible. Every aspect of
doctrine, then, is vital; and can only be interpreted one correct way because
the “word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). These prospective readers might be extremely
doubtful that any one aspect of theology could be improved or altered without
shattering everything they have regarded as true. They might relate the various
elements of theology (Soteriology, Christology, Ecclesiology, etc. – and
especially Eschatology) to the blocks in a game of Jenga. Removing any one block
could bring down the entire structure. For this audience the greatest concern
should be that CT is SO narrow, SO surgical, that it might correct or enhance
one feature of the faith without destroying the Gospel Truth in its entirety.
The fact of the matter is this: CT proclaims, yea, even
demands, that we should live by the “Truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:5, 14). Paul
and Peter, and the entire Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15:6-21, understood the
Nations/Gentiles participated in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit under the
prophetic reality of the “United Kingdom of David” (aka, the “Tabernacles of
David”) without becoming Jewish (i.e., circumcision) and its restoration so
that “the rest of mankind (Edom—Amos 9:11-12) might believe” (Acts 15:17; Amos
9:12). Notwithstanding, and almost immediately, “he [Peter] withdrew and
separated himself [from the Gentile Galatians], fearing those who were of the
circumcision [Jewish believers] . . . and the rest of the Jews also played the
hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their
hypocrisy” (Gal. 2:12-13). The “Gospel Truth” is that “He Himself is our peace,
who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation . . .
to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace . . . He came
and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near” (Eph.
2:14-18, excerpts). Peace with God is granted to all who believe on His Name;
however, peace between peoples is wrought by the same cross!
Evangelical believers who have been convinced by their
mentor, pastor, or seminary that their denomination (or even their particular
congregation) has figured out or “received” the one-and-only true take on all
Christian doctrine is exceedingly unlikely to read about a new theology.
Likewise, the extreme megalomaniac (maybe the pastor of the above church) will
not be open to any doctrinal interpretation that he or she didn’t originate.
Individualism AND control at its finest! Neither will be a reader. Absolute
truth is found in Christ alone (“You pore over the Scriptures because you
presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that
testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life” (John
5:39-40)—Berean Study Bible). Consequently, they who so vociferously “pore over
the Scriptures” – yet will not come to the Living Lord Jesus Christ, are
clearly missing the mark! “Grace and truth” came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17).
“For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word
which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who
heard it” (Heb. 4:9).
“Dead knowledge” is NOT the goal, but a fuller and complete
revelation of the Living Son of God is!
Among the interested readers might be: Evangelicals who have
encountered “issues” when comparing their own reading of the Bible with what
they have been taught; The casual inquirer who has heard about Commonwealth
Theology and wants to know how it is different from other “Commonwealth of
Israel” theologies; either Christians or Jews who are appalled by
Supersessionist/Reformed Theology’s inevitable Anti-Semitism (or anyone else on
the planet, god-fearing or atheist, who can’t find the slightest reason for the
world’s inexplicable bigotry toward the Jews). Or, the reader open to CT may
have had a Dispensational background, but has recognized its schizophrenic
tendencies when interpreting Bible prophecy as a two-tiered
theological/eschatological system; whereupon, and especially, the New Testament
can be solely written to Jews and then, inexplicably, written only to
Christians—with the Dispensationalist “rightly dividing the Word of God” as the
sole and discretionary arbiter); and, how the Jews/Israel still end up with the
short end of the stick. (Both short ends of the same stick on the
Dispensational chart.)
Due, nevertheless, to the bias intrinsically bound to the
“devotional” element of any religion, the authors realize full well that the
weight of proof to substantiate CT must mount an exceedingly high bar. Such
scriptural authority does, indeed, exist and was sufficient to move the authors
(all devoted Christians) from their previous doctrinal positions which were, in
the main, within the Reform or Dispensational camps. And, as with the authors,
so with the reader; study and time will be required to break through the
well-entrenched positions taught by mainline theologies which embrace these
aforementioned extremities.
Along with the biblical credence for CT, which makes up the
bulk of this volume, some explanation is in order – and perhaps a great deal of
explanation – for why CT has eluded prior theologians. This obvious question
did not escape the authors during the development and/or framing of
Commonwealth Theology. When, and even why, the post-Apostolic Church began to
resent and repel from the root that supports the branch is addressed in later
chapters of this book. The perpetuation of theologies promoting unscriptural
assumptions about the relationship and prophetic destiny of Israel, the Jews,
and the Church does deserve some examination in this introduction. Such
“blindness in part” has persisted for nearly two thousand years primarily due
to the normal bias of tradition and the theological “flexibility” permitted by
ambiguity.
Coming to Terms with Israel and the Church
Voltaire once stated: “Define your terms ... or we shall never
understand one another.”[vii]
In recent years this “soft spot” of defining, or redefining, terms has played a
major role in the legal arena of social issues. Common variations on Voltaire’s
ultimatum include: “He who defines the terms wins the debate,” and, “Whoever
controls the meaning of words, controls the conversation.” Op-Ed columnist
William Haupt, assembled the following syllogism, drawing from the logic of
Orwell’s 1984, and ending with a
direct quote:
If you control language, you control the argument.
If you control the argument, you control information. If you control
information, you control history. If you control history, you control the
past...,“He who controls the past controls the future.” – George Orwell’s “Big
Brother,” 1984.[viii]
Actually, Orwell’s full quote was: “[He] who controls the
past controls the future. [He] Who controls the present controls the past.”
Orwell had obviously realized the power wielded by those who are able to revise
history. But Haupt’s point is made: The past can ultimately be manipulated by
controlling the language.
In this section of the Introduction we will learn how to
disambiguate the most common terms for God’s chosen people. Because the “narrow
focus” of CT demands a re-examination of mainline Christendom’s position on the
relationship between Israel and the Church, the very terms, “Israel” and
“Church,” CANNOT remain ambiguous. When it comes to the theological field of
Israelology – ESPECIALLY – whoever controls the meaning of these words,
controls the theological position regarding Israel: Past, present, and future.
Although we are intensely focused, at the same time, the “theological
ramifications” are all encompassing – impacting every branch of theology.
Some words (terms) used in the Bible ARE actually ambiguous
– even in their original language. Most unfortunately, what is meant by the
words “Jews” and “Israel,” – in the Bible and in modern culture – must either
be defined by the context in which the words are used or by purposefully adding
further clarification. This is grievously problematic in any theological
analysis of these two entities; and yes, “Jews” and “Israel” are quite
often two separate entities when used in
the Bible.
Complicating the issue is the fact that the contemporary
usage of these words often refers to a different entity than the same word
represented when the Bible was written. Or, the same word might define a
related entity of different composition than its historical equivalent. This
“time shift” of usage can be observed even between Old and New Testament
writers. Now compound all of these moving pieces with the honest efforts of
modern Bible translators, who have tried to represent the identity of these
ancient entities by stating them in modern terms – terms which carry current
connotations based on current usage.
Furthermore, missing the true, or at least the best,
definition of these terms might occur innocently or because of intentional
bias. We will not, at this time, attempt to attach blame except to note that
Early Church theology developed in a social and political climate in which the
Jews were detested. The important thing to know for now is that Commonwealth
Theology takes great care to determine what is meant when references to Israel,
et. al. occur in the Bible. The rest of this section will examine how these
terms can be used. Just becoming aware of the variety of definitions is a step
toward identifying the correct meaning of these words when reading the Bible;
and of course, when formulating theology.
Defining Jews, Israel, and the House of Israel
Who Are the Jews?
Jews; ambiguous: Israel:
related to any tribe, Modern Israel.
Jewish ethnicity, nationhood, and
religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the ethnic religion of the Jewish
people, while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.[ix] “A person born Jewish who refutes Judaism may
continue to assert a Jewish identity, and if he or she does not convert to another
religion, even religious Jews will recognize the person as a Jew.”
Jews; disambiguous:
Judah; the House of Judah. The Greek
term was a loan from Aramaic Y'hūdāi, corresponding to Hebrew יְהוּדִי Yehudi, originally
the term for a member of the tribe of Judah or the people of the kingdom of Judah.
According to the Hebrew Bible, the name of both the tribe and kingdom derive from
Judah, the fourth son of Jacob.[x]
The English word “Jew” continues
Middle English Gyw, Iewe. These terms derive from Old French giu, earlier juieu,
which through elision had dropped the letter “d” from the Medieval Latin Iudaeus,
which, like the New Testament Greek term Ioudaios, meant both “Jew” and “Judean”
/ “of Judea”.[xi]
Speaking of Israel
Israel; ambiguous: All Israel;
the United Kingdom. According to Wictionary; 1. “The State of Israel, a modern
country in the Middle East, at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. 2. The
Land of Israel, a region that is roughly coextensive with the State of Israel.
3. (historical) An ancient kingdom that occupied roughly the same area in
ancient times. 4. (historical) An ancient kingdom that occupied the northern
part of this area, as distinct from Judah. 5. The Jews, taken collectively.”[xii]
Israel; disambiguous: Referring
to the northern 10 tribes of the divided kingdom; the House of Israel, also known as Ephraim, Samaria, the Stick of
Joseph, Jezreel; which was taken into captivity cir. 740-712 BC by the
Assyrians and was assimilated among the nations. These Israelites constitute
those nations identified in the blessing given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and
conferred upon Joseph’s younger son, Ephraim, where he would become a
“multitude of nations.”[xiii]
When the word “Israel” is used
in the Old Testament, what is it referring to? That depends on where in the
saga of the Children of Israel the word appears. Obviously, before Jacob’s
descendants settled in the Land – and before the northern and southern
settlements came to odds – “Israel,” as a nation, continued to denote the
“Children of Israel” as a whole. However, once this North - South faction
developed, the definition of “Israel” began to change.
The House of Israel and the House of Judah
The following text takes place
just prior to the union of the northern and southern tribes.
2 Samuel 2
8 But Abner
the son of Ner, commander of Saul’s army, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul and brought
him over to Mahanaim; 9 and he made him king over Gilead, over the Ashurites, over
Jezreel, over Ephraim, over Benjamin, and over all Israel. 10 Ishbosheth,
Saul’s son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he
reigned two years. Only the house of Judah followed David. 11 And the time
that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and
six months.
In the passage above, the United
Kingdom under David had not yet been formed. The northern tribes (with
Benjamin), gathered under Saul, are here referred to as “Israel;” and even “all
Israel,” along with the ten northern tribes – collectively, these twelve tribes
are referred to as “Israel”. Notwithstanding the fact that Judah was aligned
with King David. Judah was not considered to be part of “all Israel” in this
case because “all Israel,” as well as the nomenclature, “Israel,” represented
what would, after the Breach of Jeroboam, be designated “the House of Israel.”
Note that the tribe of Judah is,
however, called out as the House of Judah.
From this point on – in the Old Testament – “Israel” most often refers to the northern territories of the Promised Land. Note: as of the passage
above, these two would-be kingdoms had already been ruled by two separate
kings.
Example:
In 1 Kings 1:35, King David had
just declared Solomon to be king. The Kingdom had not yet been “formally”
divided. The verse, nonetheless, reads: “For
I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and Judah”;
signifying the House of Israel and
the House of Judah.
The meaning of “Israel” and
“Judah” MUST be established by the context of their usage. Often in the case of
prophecy, the time and jurisdiction of the prophet must be discovered in order
to establish a verse’s correct context.
Israel and Jews in the New Testament
When it comes to the New
Testament – and especially when these terms appear within quotes from the Old
Testament – the same process of discovery must be applied in order to
disambiguate their meaning. Furthermore, the Old Testament meaning of
references to “Israel,” “Judah,” and “Jews” within such quoted verses must be
respected when interpreting the New Testament passage in which these words
occur.
The history and prophetic
significance of BOTH houses of Israel carried over into New Testament times. As
formerly noted, Jesus made reference to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.
Moreover, Peter’s first sermon mentions, and even indicates the location of, the
two houses at the beginning of the first century. Perhaps because Judah had not
been formally divorced by God as the House of Israel had been, Peter honored
the order recorded by Paul as “first to
the Jew, then to the Greek.”
Peter began his Day of Pentecost
sermon by addressing the House of Judah: “Men
of Judah (Ioudaioi) and all who
dwell in Jerusalem” (Acts 2:14). Recall that Daniel used this same wording
to address “those near”: “To the men of
Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem...”. Later in his sermon, Peter
acknowledged those from among the nations,
who had been specifically identified in verses 9-11, as those who had
traveled from foreign lands for the feast: “Therefore
let all the house of Israel (oikos
Israel, οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ) know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you
crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:39).
Defining the Church
“Church” in the Original Language
Jesus and the Apostles chose to use an Old Testament Greek
word for Christ’s congregation. The word “ekklesia”
(ἐκκλησίᾳ ekklēsia) comes from the word “kaleo”;
a calling out; [Ecclesia, as translated into Latin]. Ekklesia – as used nearly 200 times in the Septuagint – means,
“congregation” or “assembly.” Christ and the authors of the New Testament used
this word, rather than using a different word – or creating a new word – to
describe the “assembly” who followed “the way.” The Apostles continued to
gather and worship at the Temple (as well as from house to house) because God
had simply sent Messiah to save the Ekklesia (Congregation) of both houses of
Israel. And to include the Nations – “even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles” (Rom. 9:24).
Therefore, quite naturally, the writers of the New Testament had no reason to
change the name of the Ekklesia. As we will see in later chapters, even early
English translations of the New Testament used the word, “Congregacion,” for
what is today translated, “Church.” See: Tyndale Bible (1526), Coverdale Bible (1535),
Matthew Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), Bishop's Bible (1568).
When the Congregation became “the Church”
King James insisted by edict that “Church” be used instead of
“congregation.”[xiv] “Church”
was a familiar word for a gathering place for worship. The origin of the word
“church,” according to Oxford’s Lexico: Old English circe, cyrce, related to
Dutch kerk and German Kirche, based on medieval Greek kurikon, from Greek
kuriakon (dōma) ‘Lord's (house).[xv]
Most likely, King James’ motivation for favoring this new and different word
for the Congregation was politically motivated rather than Anti-Semitic. (It is
suggested that the king desired to gain control over the buildings in which the
congregation assembled since Christ is obviously the head of the congregation.[xvi])
The king’s edict, however, blurred the distinction between the religion and the
edifice, e.g., Jews meet in a synagogue/temple, Buddhists in a temple, Muslims in
a mosque, but the “church” – in a church. The tragedy of this etymological manipulation
is that the continuity between the “congregation (ekklesia) in the wilderness” and
the “congregation (ekklesia) of Christ” is lost to the English reader.
The “English” study of Ecclesiology is obviously complicated
by the English translation of the key words, Ethnos and Ekklesia.
Likewise, disambiguating the meaning of the terms, “Israel” and “Jews,” is
essential in studying Israelology. One can now appreciate the difficulty in
undertaking a scholarly examination of the biblical relationship between God’s
chosen people-of-old and the congregation of Christ. Although the word “church”
automatically conveys a separation – even isolation – that was never intended
by the authors of the New Testament; and, although “Israel” can easily have
four different meanings (apart from the name given to Jacob); this volume will
continue to discuss the Commonwealth of Israel using the customary terms:
Israel and the Church. These terms will, nevertheless, be carefully defined
with the understanding that “Church” is not the congregation/the ekklesia but
is in point of fact the actual places of worship, the buildings; whereas,
“Church” in its “organic extrapolation” refers to the living people of God –
His Ekklessia – His assembly.
He Loves Israel, He Loves Israel Not
One more “ambiguity” should be discussed in the course of
this introduction. Has God cast away His people?
Have they stumbled that they should fall?
(Rom. 11:1, 11). Well: Yes; and, No. Yes, because both houses of Israel did
fall into sin. And the House of Israel was certainly divorced (Jer. 3:8); and
both houses were cast away from their land. Due to this historical reality,
hundreds of verses can be quoted from the Old Testament which – taken out of
the context of time – can be (and have been) used to support the argument that
God has rejected “Israel” and/or “the Jews”; and that, subsequently, God needed
to “replace” the whole lot with a new group of chosen people: the Church.
“Israel had been laboring under the curse for seven hundred
years before Yeshua was born. According to 2 Kings 21:10-15 and Jeremiah 15:4,
it was pronounced during the reign of the wicked king Manasseh, who filled
Jerusalem with idolatry and blood from one end to the other. What this means is
that, contrary to common Christian interpretation, the Jewish people were not
cursed because they rejected Yeshua. On the contrary, the Jews had already been
under the punishment of the law for over seven hundred years before Yeshua
came. In fact, the rejection of Yeshua by all but a minority of Jews was the
result of the curse, not the cause of it!”[xvii]
Messiah did not come into the world for the purpose of
rejecting His people, who had already been rejected; but rather, to remedy the
longstanding rejection which had already occurred. Prophecy relates the comfort
and assurance of Messiah’s rescue directly to God’s correction of Israel and
their being cast away. (See the overall context of the virgin birth, Immanuel,
and the Prince of Peace; Isaiah Chapters Six through Nine). The coming of
Messiah was all about the restoration of Israel. Not, the replacement of
Israel. Much more will be said to refute Supersessionism within the body of
this book.
In conclusion, consider a passage of Isaiah, quoted by
Matthew, that brings closure to several points previously discussed. Isaiah
Nine begins by bringing attention to a region that was part of the northern
House of Israel: “land of Zebulun and the
land of Naphtali.” During the deportation of the northern house by Assyria
into the northern reaches of the Assyrian Empire, people from the nations under
Assyrian rule (Gentiles) were imported into these same northern provinces, aka.
Ephraim. Thus, Isaiah’s reference to “Galilee
of the Gentiles (Nations).” In the third verse of the ninth chapter Isaiah
declared, “You have multiplied the
nation,” thereby making reference to both the “inclusion” of the Gentiles
and the dual fulfillments: of God’s covenant with Abraham, and Ephraim’s
blessing – to become a “multitude of nations.” Moreover, just as the
Commonwealth of Israel was founded upon the sacrifice of the One who said, “but
for this cause came I unto this hour,” this “multiplier of nations” was
identified in Isaiah 9:6: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given”
– the “us” here being both Judah and Israel, but having in view all humankind!
[i] see: 1
Maccabees 8:17-20 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman-Jewish_Treaty
[ii] History of the Christian Church, Philip
Schaff, Hendrickson Publishers, 2011, Vol. 2, p. 156
[iii] Why Most Christians Believe in a Post-Tribulation
Rapture: 2nd Edition, Steinle, Memorial Crown Press, 2020, pp. 145-147
[iv] Commonwealth Theology, by Douglas
Krieger, Tribnet Publications, 2018, p. 98
[v] Ibid, p.
357
[vi] The Epistles of John and Jude, H.A. Ironside, 1949, Loizeaux Brothers, p. 13
[vii] Voltaire,
Dictionnaire Philosophique
[viii]
Op-Ed: Control the language and control history by William Haupt III, The
Center Square Aug 5, 2019,
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/op-ed-control-the-language-and-control-history/article_53e45292-b6f5-11e9-a1d2-07cbbda5a160.html
[ix] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
[x] “Jew”, Oxford English Dictionary
[xi] Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and
the Middle East, Facts On File Inc., Infobase Publishing, 2009, p. 336
[xii]
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Israel
[xiii] Commonwealth Theology, by Douglas Krieger,
Tribnet Publications, 2018, p. 10
[xiv] Ecclesia.org,
"The Origin of the word Church", retrieved 5/21/2020: http://ecclesia.org/Truth/ekklesia.html
[xv] Oxford’s
Lexico, "church", retrieved 5/21/2020, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/church
[xvi] The VineyardJC,"Beware
Of Translator Bias" by Christine Egbert, retrieved 02/21/2020: https://vineyardjc.com/beware-of-idols-even-the-king-james
[xvii] Galatians, Judaizing, and the Curse of the Law:
Marrying The New Perspective on Paul, the Divine Council paradigm, and eschatology
(2nd Draft), by Michael Bugg:
https://www.academia.edu/28706723/Galatians_Judaizing_and_the_Curse_of_the_Law_Marrying_The_New_Perspective_on_Paul_the_Divine_Council_paradigm_and_eschatology_2nd_Draft_?email_work_card=thumbnail
- COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL.
All rights reserved. This book sample (preview) or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations. Copyright © 2020 by Commonwealth of Israel Foundation, Phoenix.
No comments:
Post a Comment