Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?: The Identity of God's Israel

"You know, I'm a Jew." When those immediately surrounding you come from a Christian background, this is a statement that will usually perk some ears. In fact, I have used it at times to transition a conversation toward biblical theology--and more specifically the Gospel--when I sense confusion over the place of Jewish people in relationship to Christianity.

Of course, such a statement comes with necessary qualification, but according to Russell Moore (and more importantly, the New Testament), I'm correct in asserting my Jewish heritage.

At the recently revamped Moore to the Point, Dr. Moore has posted on the too often controversial topic of the identity of true Israel according to the Bible. In his article, "Is there a Future for Israel?", Moore notes that all Christians believe Israel has a future. However, the disagreement occurs in the discussion over to what (or whom) exactly the word Israel refers in various contexts in addition to its place in redemptive history, especially eschatology. After laying out the basic positions taken by dispensationalists and covenant theologians, Moore tells of his differences with both views. He writes:

Both covenant theology and dispensationalism, however, often discuss Israel and the church without taking into account the Christocentric nature of biblical eschatology. The future restoration of Israel has never been promised to the unfaithful, unregenerate members of the nation (John 3:3-10; Rom 2:25-29)-only to the faithful remnant.

The church is not Israel, at least not in a direct, unmediated sense. The remnant of Israel-a biological descendant of Abraham, a circumcised Jewish firstborn son who is approved of by God for his obedience to the covenant-receives all of the promises due to him.

"Israel is Jesus of Nazareth," Moore states. In Ezekiel 37:13-14, God promised to raise Israel from the dead and put his Spirit within them in order to make known that "I am the LORD." According to the apostle Paul, God has done this in Christ (Rom 1:2-4).

Once more from Ezekiel, Israel is referred to as the useless "wood of the vine" which is given over to fiery judgment (Ezek 15:6-8). In John's Gospel, Jesus speaks of himself as the true vine (John 15:1, 5-6). As Israel was judged and eventually given over to exile due to their disobedience, so too was Jesus of Nazareth exiled from the presence of God (Matt 27:46), except not for his own disobedience but ours.

The parallels between Christ and Israel are vastly numerous, indicating the Christocentric nature of the biblical narrative. The apostle Paul summarized this reality best in asserting that "all the promises of God find their Yes in him" (2 Cor 1:20 ESV). Furthermore, Paul goes on to say that through Christ we obtain our guaranteed inheritance (2 Cor 1:21-22; Rom 8:17). This inheritance is not merely the salvation of our souls but to act as rulers of the entire cosmos. Moore explains:

This is the radical nature of the gospel in the New Testament. Dispensationalists are right that only ethnic Jews receive the promised future restoration, but Paul makes clear that the "seed of Abraham” is singular, not plural (Gal 3:16). Only the circumcised can inherit the promised future for Israel. All believers-Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female-are forensically Jewish firstborn sons of God (Gal 3:28). They are in Christ. Circumcision is not irrelevant. Instead, both Jews and Gentiles in Christ are “the circumcision” because they have “the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11-12).

To make matters clearer, Moore adds, "In Christ, I inherit all the promises due to Abraham’s offspring because I am 'hidden' in Abraham’s promised offspring so that everything that is true of him is true of me."

Much of the time, due to the influence of dispensationalism upon our churches, evangelicals grow unnecessarily distressed over current events relating to modern-day Israel. Such an anxiety stems from Christians, as so many theologians have put it, "reading the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in another." This anxiety can be resolved in realizing that the promises of God rest not in Palestinian land disputes but in Christ, the firstborn and rightful heir of all creation (Col 1:15).

In other words, the Canaanite land promised to Abraham ages ago will indeed be given to God's people. Yet, it will stretch much farther than the Gaza Strip; it will be literally the entire cosmos (Rom 4:13). And yes, this land is reserved for ethnic Israel. As Russell Moore puts it, this land belongs to "one ethnic Jew whose name is Jesus."

To paraphrase a certain Caucasian rap artist, "Will the real Israel please stand up?" The truth remains that he has already stood up when on the third day he walked out of a Jerusalem tomb almost 2,000 years ago. In the meantime, he sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from where he will come to judge the living and the dead... and then to reign (Psalm 110).

From hereon, the question, "Are you Jewish?" should call for a bit more perplexing answer.

1 John 5:7-8

One controversial verse, when it comes to the KJV/modern translations debate is 1 John 5:7. I’ll give 5:8 also.

KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

ESV: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

-

Big difference, huh?

As I said in a previous comment, verses don’t simply vanish from Scripture. The accusations from KJV-users are serious indeed. If this phrase (known as the Comma Johanneum) was originally part of Holy Scripture, its deletion is an attack on the Holy Trinity. I argue on the contrary, that this phrase is not Holy Scripture, but rather something added by a scribe later. Allow me to elaborate.

When Erasmus was preparing the Textus Receptus, he originally left this phrase out. Now the phrase had been in the Latin Bible of the Catholic Church, but Erasmus never found a Greek manuscript containing the verse. Erasmus took a lot of criticism for his decision, and in the end said that if he could find only one Greek manuscript containing this verse, he would include it into the Textus Receptus.

Lo, and behold, a short while later, Erasmus was presented with such a manuscript. It is called the Codex Montfortianus, and is Miniscule #61. True to his word, Erasmus added the phrase in his next edition, though he did include a lengthy footnote explaining the curious situation around the verse, and voicing his suspicions that 61 was tailor made for the sole purpose of forcing him to include this phrase into the Textus Receptus.

Bruce Metzger’s textbook describes 61 thus: “This manuscript of the Entire New Testament, dating from the early 16th century, now at Trinity College, Dublin, has more importance historically than intrinsically. It is the first Greek manuscript discovered that contains the passage relating to the Three Heavenly Witnesses (1 Jn 5:7-8). It was on the basis of this single, late witness that Erasmus was induced to insert this certainly spurious passage into the text of 1 John. The manuscript, which is remarkably fresh and clean throughout (except for the two pages containing 1 John 5, which are soiled from repeated examination), gives every appearance of having been produced expressly for the purpose of confuting Erasmus.” (The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration, 4th ed., page 88, emphasis mine.)

Later in the book, Metzger writes: “As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus included the passage in his Third Edition (1522) but in a lengthy footnote that was included in his volume of annotations, he intimated his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him.” (p. 147)

Since Erasmus, we have discovered more manuscripts that do indeed contain the Comma Johanneum. Eight, to be exact. Of the 8, only 4 (one of which is 61) contain the phrase in the text of the Bible, while the other 4 have it as a marginal note. The earliest of the 8 dated a full millennium after the New Testament was written. This 10th century manuscript contains the Comma Johanneum as a variant reading (i.e., NOT in the text of the Bible, but rather, in the margin). The next oldest comes about 400 years later. Of the 5800 or so Greek manuscripts we have discovered of the New Testament, only 8 late witnesses record this phrase. This is hardly the majority text.

However, to the Latin-speaking church, the Phrase goes back to the 4th century work, Liber apologeticus, written by either Priscillian or his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain (Priscillian goes down as the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy). It was a piece of allegorical exegesis (for the record, Priscillian respected most of the Old Testament, but rejected the Creation story). The phrase never appeared in the Vulgate (despite its presence in the Old Latin bible) until about A.D. 800.

MOREOVER, we have the testimony (or rather, the lack thereof) from the Greek fathers. The early church was filled with controversy surrounding the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Several heresies (including the Sabellian and Arian heresies) popped up denying the Trinity and it was the work of the church fathers to refute them, preserving the orthodox teaching of the Church (and for that matter, the Bible, though at this point in history, the two were regarded as one and the same). It speaks volumes that none of the Greek fathers ever quoted this verse. Not a single one. However, this is the most obvious verse to quote in the entire New Testament to prove the Trinity. How could they have possibly missed it?

More than that, the translators of the ancient versions must have missed it also. This verse appears only in Old Latin Bibles from the 5th cent. on, and the Latin Vulgate after A.D. 800. No other ancient translations contain this phrase.

So I ask: Which is more likely? Did a beautiful verse explaining the Holy Trinity simply vanish from Scripture, without cause or explanation very early on, only to be recovered by (to the best of our knowledge) a Spanish heretic who denied the first chapters of Genesis , after which it caught on only in the Western (i.e. Roman Catholic) Church? Or, was this phrase added to the Scriptures centuries after 1 John was written as an attempt to more easily prove a doctrine from Scripture.

No, this isn’t a doctrinal issue. The Greek speaking church has defended the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity for centuries without this phrase. Its absence doesn’t make room for Mary. Yes, people get saved from the King James Version, and yes, people that use modern translations can still believe in a young earth and salvation by Christ alone. This isn’t about doctrine, but about textual purity. The evidence stands as it does.

(In all of this, I mean no hostility at all to my KJV-only brothers; I just love text criticism. In many ways I respect them more than people who tend to newer versions, for if someone is using a KJV, you can bank on him believing it. You’ll be hard pressed to find a liberal who believes KJV-only, and for that among many other issues, I thank God for my KJV-only brothers. It is my prayer that all evangelical churches would be characterized by the same zeal for God’s word and it’s primacy in life for all situations that characterizes churches who preach from God’s word in the King James Version.)

Grace and peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ,

-Elijah

(note: while my links are to Wikipedia, none of my research was done there. I used Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed., Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd. ed., and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.)