future of Israel as a theological question, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2001 by Blaising, Craig A

Now from an evangelical standpoint, there are many problems with the dual-covenant theory. A number of these have been addressed in various publications, and I can only mention some within the scope of this paper. 16 Let us focus first of all upon the claim concerning the covenant relationships of Israel and of the Church to God.

Does it make sense to say within the frameworks of the Tannach and of the Old and New Testaments that we could have two different God-approved religions, each with their own covenant relationships to God, existing side-by-side, separate but equal? Both Israel in the Tannach and the Church in the NT see themselves related to God through the covenant with Abraham. And consequently, both see their covenant relationship with God as in some way entailing all peoples as that covenant promised to bless Abraham and his seed and in him, or in his seed, all peoples. The eschatological vision of Israel in the Tannach is the mediation of that blessing with which she is herself blessed to the Gentiles-for example the shalom of Israel extending to the Gentiles in Isaiah 2/Micah 4 and the Isaiah oracles concerning Yahweh the Savior of all nations (Isa 42:1-6, 10-12; 45:22-25; 49:6-7, 22-26; 60:1-3). The latter is prefaced with the command to proclaim the good news of the Lord's favor to Zion and to all the nations (Isa 40:9-11; 45:22-25). This vision is universal; it leaves no room for a people related to God by some other covenantal means. The Church in the NT sees itself proclaiming new covenant blessings that flow from the covenant made with Abraham (Gal 3:6-14). The NT sees both Jew and Gentile in Christ united in this new covenant blessing (Gal 2:6-9). The NT does see Jewish and Gentile Christians in different relationships to the Law of Moses. We think of Acts 15, where the Jerusalem Council rejected the argument that Gentile believers had to be circumcised and had to observe the Law of Moses. Jewish believers, however, continued to do so. James says that the Jewish believers in Christ were zealous for the Torah (Acts 21:20). Paul himself practiced the law (Acts 12:21-26; 23:6; 24:13-21; 25:19; 28:17) but rejected the Pharisaic restrictions on table fellowship with Gentiles (Gal 2:11-21; 1 Cor 9:19-23), just as Jesus rejected those same restrictions used to discriminate among Jews (Matt 9:10-13 et al.). But even though the NT does see Jewish and Gentile Christians with different relationships to the Law of Moses, it does not see this as a distinction between Judaism and the Church. Rather, the Church contains within its unity of new covenant blessing both Mosaic and Gentilic orders. The point is this: neither the vision in the Tannach of Israel's covenant relationship to God and God's plan to bless Gentiles, nor the NT view of Jews and Gentiles in the Church presents a view of dual, unrelated covenants, one for Jews as Jews and the other for Gentiles as Gentiles. What is more, both require evangelistic proclamation of covenant blessing to all peoples. Consequently, dual covenant theology is fundamentally incompatible with the Biblical foundations of Israel's and the Church's identities and missions.