ISRAEL AND CHRISTIAN ANTI-JUDAIC
HERMENEUTICS TODAY

Our concern is now the hermeneutical principle that imposes the NT revelation of Jesus Christ on the OT in such a way that the new covenant (upper layer) has become the controlling hermeneutic whereby the old covenant (lower layer) is christologically reinterpreted. Colin Chapman, Steve Motyer, Stephen Sizer, Peter Walker, and N. T. Wright, representing UK Anglicanism, and Anthony Hoekema, William Hendriksen, Hans K. LaRondelle, and O. Palmer Robertson, representing US scholarship, provide further basic scholarly agreement. With variation in tone, they all draw on the same essential Augustinian root to examine the OT through the controlling lens of the NT. They would all agree with the fundamental hermeneutical approach of Turretin, Fairbairn, Bavinck, and Vos, representing four hundred years of Reformed eschatology. But all of these scholars without exception—and this in no way being a coincidence—emphatically assert the covenantal nullification of ethnic, national, and territorial Israel.

“But does not this galaxy of Reformed scholars represent a weighty, scholastic fraternity?” Yes, without a doubt we have here a concert of notable, esteemed, and influential theologians. But I maintain that the eschatological lineage here is not vindicated by resultant, attractive, ethical fruit that parallels Paul's biblical esteem for the Jews. The reason is that the study of centuries of church history has led to the unraveling of closely woven strands of shameful anti-Judaism by Lutheran, Anglican, Dutch Reformed, Nonconformist, or Presbyterian scholars, exceptions notwithstanding. But perhaps, it is protested, “Do not these various strands nevertheless present sound hermeneutical reasons for their biblical exegesis?” To answer this I would respond with two further questions. Is it admitted that the root of this sound exegesis takes us back to the esteemed Augustine? Richard Muller suggests that this is so when he writes,

Reformed theology appears not as a monolithic structure—not, in short, as “Calvinism”—but as a form of Augustinian theology and piety capable of considerable variation in its form and presentation.¹

If this is the case, then is Augustine's seminal exegesis of Ps 59:11 (“Do not kill them [the Jews]; otherwise, my people will forget. By Your power, make them homeless wanderers”) whereby he established centuries of shameful treatment of the Jewish people, representative of his contemporary biblical successors? I maintain that Augustine was grievously wrong in his exegesis at this point, and in so doing he bequeathed a hermeneutical legacy that has proved to result in dire consequences for the people of Israel. Furthermore, I suggest that the traditional Reformed exegesis at this point is likewise in error since it is grounded on the same Augustinian root and has resulted in similar Augustinian fruit. The various Reformed strands have similarly humiliated the Jews through tokenism and the denial of ethnicity, nationality, and territory according to divine mandate. So we must consider the fallacy of the essential Reformed hermeneutic insofar as it is concerned with the eschatology of Israel. But before doing so, there is one significant author in this regard who merits special consideration.

The Hermeneutic of George Eldon Ladd

George Ladd is often upheld today as the quintessential historic premillennialist, though I seriously question his representative status in this regard. I would maintain that earlier premillennialists, being more Judeo-centric, better qualify as being characteristic of historic premillen-nialism. They would include Joseph A. Seiss, David Baron, Adolph Safir, B. W. Newton, H. Grattan Guinness, J. C. Ryle, C. H. Spurgeon, George Peters, Nathaniel West, and Horatius Bonar. As such, they were far more historic in the accepted sense of that term when their lineage is traced back at least to the millennial awakening originating in Protestant England and Europe. Concerning Israel, without exception, these latter mentioned authors all upheld the expectation of a distinctive, glorious, prominent, national prospect for Israel in the land under the personal reign of Jesus Christ, and this expectation came with the explicit support of numerous OT and NT passages. Their Judeo-centricity qualified them as far more authentically historic in their premillennialism. On the other hand, Ladd has maintained that Revelation 20 explicitly and exegetically provides the sole, albeit conclusive proof from the Bible for the premillennial school of eschatology. When pressed concerning the degree to which the OT gave further support to premillennialism, he responded that it provided none whatsoever! His reason here was that he perceived OT passages that have been commonly understood in millennial terms as finding their fulfillment, not with regard to national Israel's future glory, but rather the Christian church. This new covenant community comprised of Jews and Gentiles has inherited God's OT promised blessings as the newly constituted people of God. Consequently he identified at this point with a more Augustinian and Reformed appropriation, by the Christian church, of promises formerly made to abandoned OT Israel, so that the new body of God's people had become the new spiritual Israel. Thus,

Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament to find their deeper meaning. ...I do not see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that the New Testament applies Old Testament prophecies to the New Testament church and in so doing identifies the church as spiritual Israel.²

For example, Ladd cites Rom 9:24–26 where Paul employs Hos 2:23; 1:10 to describe God's call to the Gentiles. Yet the context of Hosea 1–2 deals with the nation of Israel and the promised land. It is here that Ladd's Gentile logic, rather than a Hebrew perspective represented by Paul, concludes that Hosea's prophecy finds a broader, more inclusive fulfillment which nullifies a more narrow, national, eschatological interpretation of the prophet. Thus, “the prophecies of Hosea are fulfilled in the Christian church. ...It is clearly what the NT does to the OT prophecies.”³ Therefore, other national promises in the OT may similarly be understood as being fulfilled in the church. So Ladd elsewhere concluded that “it is highly probable that when Paul speaks of the ‘Israel of God’ (Gal. 6:16) he is referring to the church as the ‘true spiritual Israel.’“⁴

Concerning the reference to the quotations in Romans 9 from Hosea, an explanation is in order, and it will somewhat justify the prior reference to Ladd's “Gentile logic.” As a converted Jewish rabbi, Paul confessedly remained a Jew (Rom 11:1; Acts 21:39; 22:3) who, in quoting the OT in a manner that a Gentile is not accustomed to, made use of Hosea in an applicatory or analogical manner which nevertheless does not nullify the obvious, original literal interpretation. David Stern, a Hebrew Christian scholar, commented,

Sha'ul [Paul] uses these texts from Hoshea midrashically. Hosea was not referring to Gentiles but to Israel itself; he meant that one day Israel, in rebellion when he wrote, would be called God's people. Sha'ul's meaning, which does not conflict with what Hoshea wrote but is not a necessary inference from it, is that ‘God's people’ now includes some Gentiles. How this has come about and for what purpose are examined at [Rom] 9:30–10:4 and 11:17–32, as well as in the book of Ephesians.⁵

In a similar way Sanday and Headlam commented,

St. Paul applies the principle which underlies these words [of Hosea], that God can take into His covenant those who were previously cut off from it, to the calling of the Gentiles. A similar interpretation of the verse was held by the Rabbis.⁶

If this basic hermeneutical principle is true, it opens up a world of understanding concerning how the Hebrew authors of the NT could legitimately quote from the OT in a more applicatory, illustrative sense without invalidating the original literal meaning, as Ladd's rigid exclusionary approach demands, and as is frequently the case with Reformed amillennialists.⁷

Nevertheless, according to his exclusionary hermeneutical method, Ladd is led necessarily to introduce the term “reinterpretation,” which has doubtful legitimacy.⁸ Obviously, he appreciated that careful exegesis of eschatological texts within the OT, employing his interpretive methodology, presents difficulties. As a result, he found himself willingly boxed into a corner of generalization and suggestion according to his imposition of the NT on the OT. Proof of this is found in his dealing with such classic eschatological passages as Ezek 36–37 and Zech 8; 14, especially as they relate to Israel's national and territorial destiny. Regarding these references in Ladd's A Theology of the New Testament, instead of specifically referencing “Israel,” “nations,” “land,” and “Zion/Jerusalem,” he repeatedly and accommodatingly substitutes “his/God's people.” Thus he will not particularize in a precise exegetical manner since his hermeneutic is more arbitrary and inclusive with regard to the OT. So we should not be surprised at the diminutive place that the Jews hold in Ladd's eschatology. He did acknowledge Jewish individuality; even nationality seems to find some brief, indistinct, uncertain mention; but consideration of the land and its validity for national Israel is virtually nonexistent. I believe, however, that the specificity and historic reality of the Prophets is of much greater importance than mere NT window dressing. I further believe that the NT authors, according to a Hebrew mindset, when rightly comprehended, would be startled to discover that they are chargeable with the principle of “reinterpretation” that tends to denigrate the plain, original meaning of the Prophets. A final perceptive objection to Ladd's hermeneutic of NT imposition on the OT is that of Walter C. Kaiser Jr.:

It is widely held that the most obvious corollary to the Christocentric hermeneutic is the theologia crucis that the New Testament must always be our guide to interpreting the Old Testament. But why would a rule be imposed on the revelation of God that demands that the Old Testament passages may not become the basis for giving primary direction on any doctrines or truths that have relevancy for New Testament times? This is only to argue in the end for a canon within a canon. ...We misjudge the revelation of God if we have a theory of interpretation which says the most recent revelation of God is to be preferred or substituted for that which came earlier.⁹

The Instructive Example of Hebrews

Of all the books of the NT, Hebrews has the most concentrated collection of quotations from the OT. In P. Ellingworth's commentary on Hebrews, which draws heavily on his doctoral research (1977), he assesses 35 explicit quotations, including 14 from the Psalms and 13 from the Pentateuch.¹⁰ This leads us immediately to refer to the cautionary comment of John Owen on Hebrews: “There is not any thing in this Epistle that is attended with more difficulty than the citation of the testimonies out of the Old Testament that are made use of in it.”¹¹ The reason is that the author of Hebrews was comfortable with the flexible use of the OT in a number of ways. Therefore, it is both cavalier and misleading to suggest that a controlling NT hermeneutic kicks in, so to speak, with the result that the original meaning of the OT quotations is now invalidated. With this in mind, it must be noted that Hebrews was written by a Hebrew Christian to Hebrew Christians. So we need to approach the interpretation of this epistle, not so much with a Gentile frame of reference as with the frank conclusion of Simon Kistemaker in mind:

In contrast to the NT authors the present day writer is bound in his writing and thinking by profane [secular] motifs, by grammatico-historical principles, which characterize him as a child of his time. Hence our motifs and principles may never be foisted upon the writers and literature of the first century of our era.¹²

Then he concludes the section dealing with hermeneutical principles as follows:

It is quite understandable that this type of [Midrashim] sermon delivery was transferred from the Synagogue to the Early Church. Many of the characteristics in the Jewish manner of expounding a portion of Scripture in respect to method, were directly passed on to the sermons preached by the apostles and evangelists. There are still a few of these early Christian Midrashim extant. The Second Epistle of Clement, usually considered a homily, is in fact an early midrash. It may be said conclusively that the recipients of the Epistle to the Hebrews were addressed in accordance with the literary methods prevalent in that day.¹³

Horatius Bonar, although writing over a century earlier, nevertheless appreciated this same approach concerning the presupposition of a Hebrew hermeneutic when he wrote,

Much is to be learned in the way of typical exposition from the Epistle to the Hebrews, not merely in reference to the passages cited, or the events referred to, but respecting a multitude of others to which there is no allusion at all. The apostle proceeds upon certain principles of interpretation recognized among his countrymen. He did not write as one who had discovered a new theory of interpretation which he called on them to receive [emphasis added]; but he proceeds upon principles owned by and familiar to them. He takes his stand upon their own application of the prophecies regarding Messiah, and reasons with them upon principles which both he and they acknowledged. To ascertain these is of much importance. They are the principles adopted by the nation to whom the prophecies were addressed, and, therefore, acquainted with the circumstances in which they were spoken; a nation to whom the language and dialect of prophecy were as their native tongue, and of whose history every event had been an accomplished prophecy; a nation who had not only prophets to predict, but also to guide them to the right meaning of “what manner of things the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify” [1 Pet 1:11]; a nation that in their last days had the Messiah himself to expound to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself [Luke 24:17], to correct their principles wherein they were false, and to confirm them wherein they were true.¹⁴

In this regard due credit should also be given to John Calvin who, in considering the manner in which some of the OT quotations are employed in Hebrews, came to a conclusion similar to that of Stern, Kistemaker, and Bonar. In commenting on Heb 2:7 where Ps 8:5–6 is quoted, he declared,

This Psalm which he [Paul?] quotes must be examined, for it seems to be unfitly applied to Christ. ...He [David] does not, then, speak of any particular person, but of all mankind. To this I answer, that all of this affords no reason why the words should not be applied to the person of Christ. ...It was not the Apostle's design to give an exact explanation of the words. For there is nothing improperly done, when verbal allusions are made to embellish a subject in hand, as Paul does in Romans 10:6, from Moses. ...He only bids us to consider the abasement of Christ, which appeared for a short time, and then the glory with which he is perpetually crowned; and this he does more by alluding to expressions than by explaining what David understood.¹⁵

I conclude that the hermeneutic of reinterpretation and transference is illegitimate, which takes the adapted quotation of the OT in the NT to be justification for nullifying the literal interpretation of that same OT passage. The reason is that it not only ignores a fundamental, Hebrew, her-meneutical frame of reference, but it also brings about a serious distortion of meaning, especially where the eschatological message of the Prophets is concerned. Representatives of this hermeneutic of reinterpretation and transference are now considered.

A Christocentric Hermeneutic
against the Hebrew Scriptures

An anti-Judaic eschatology is most often grounded on a NT re-interpretation of the OT. By this means the “Christianizing” of the OT results in it being evacuated of its distinctive Jewish roots and substance. Some definitive examples of this teaching are as follows, along with subsequent comment. What stands out here is that, apart from some variations in emphasis, the essentially Augustinian transference hermeneutic unfailingly results in the national and territorial nullification of Israel.

N. T. Wright stated,

He [Jesus] had not come to rehabilitate the symbol of the holy land, but to subsume it within a different fulfillment of the kingdom, which would embrace the whole creation. ...Jesus spent his whole ministry redefining what the kingdom meant. He refused to give up the symbolic language of the kingdom, but filled it with such new content that, as we have seen, he powerfully subverted Jewish expectations.¹⁶

Through the Messiah and the preaching which heralds him, Israel is transformed from being an ethnic people into a worldwide family.¹⁷

Those who now belonged to Jesus' people were not identical with ethnic Israel, since Israel's history had reached its intended fulfillment; they claimed to be the continuation of Israel in a new situation, able to draw on Israel-images to express their self-identity, able to read Israel's Scriptures (through the lens of Messiah and spirit) and apply them to their own life. They were thrust out by that claim, and that reading, to fulfill Israel's vocation on behalf of the world.¹⁸

So historic Israel and the holy land, while having come to a substantial conclusion, yet are “universalized” through “symbolic language” and “images” (as in “The song is ended, but the melody lingers on”). Here is an attempt to linguistically adorn what in reality is the offensive face of supercessionism. The result is that today the Jews, their nation, and their territory are “subsumed” within the kingdom of God, that is, they are absorbed into glorious homogeneity. The OT promises concerning a distinctive restoration were a literary accommodation, a mere shadowy representation that should not be taken too seriously. Israel and Christian Anti-Judaic Hermeneutics Today

Colin Chapman wrote,

It was not that Jesus was simply “spiritualizing” Old Testament prophecies, and thereby leaving open the possibility that they might one day be interpreted literally. Rather, according to him, the gathering of believers into the kingdom of God was the true fulfillment of these prophecies. Some Christian writers have pointed out that the prophets predicted the return of the exiles from all countries—from north, south, east and west. Moreover, they say, some of the prophets (notably Zechariah) specifically predicted that exiles of the northern kingdom of Israel would return to the land as well as exiles from the southern kingdom of Judah [Ezek 37:15–23; Zech 8:13]. They go on to ask: has anything happened in history which fits this description—except the recent return of Jews to the land? The question at first sight seems unanswerable; it sounds a convincing ‘knock-down’ argument. But if the Christian is to interpret Old Testament prophecy in the light of the teaching of Jesus, the question simply does not arise. Why? Because in the perspective of Jesus, the ingathering of the exiles—from north, south, east and west—takes place when people of all races are gathered into the kingdom of God. This is the true, the real, the intended fulfillment of prophecy. ...Christians today do not have the liberty to interpret the Old Testament in any way that appeals to them. Everything in the Old Testament has to be read through the eyes of the apostles. It is they who, so to speak, give us the right spectacles for a genuinely Christian reading of the Old Testament. Therefore if Christians today find that certain details in books like Ezekiel appear to fit certain situations in the Middle East today, they should resist the temptation to draw direct connections with these contemporary events. The reason is that since the apostle John has given his interpretation of Ezekiel's visions, this should be seen as the normative Christian interpretation of these visions, and not only one possible interpretation.¹⁹

The subjective arbitrariness of the supposed “interpretation” of Zechariah here is simply breathtaking. Though in all this one senses a suppressed unease. The plain teaching of the exilic and postexilic prophets is obliquely confessed as obvious, then put down. After all, if Ezekiel and Zechariah are allowed to stand according to their plain and obvious sense, then a whole eschatological edifice comes tumbling down. As a result, there would be an eschatological future for national Israel. But this would never do! Consequently, Chapman must turn to the Jewish apostles, such as John, who have renounced that carnal Jewish focus of the past and ascended to more spiritual heights whereby Ezekiel and Zechariah are reinterpreted in more universal, Christocentric terms. Be warned that this is the one and only interpretation; yield to it as the new norm lest one become beguiled by the deceitful, obvious clarity of literal interpretation. But then we turn to Acts 5:31 where these same Jewish apostles declare concerning Jesus Christ, “God exalted this man to His right hand as ruler and Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” This does not sound like supercessionism any more than was the case when Paul declared to the leading Jews in Rome that his captivity was “for the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). These Jewish apostles do not mislead us with ambiguous terminology whereby reinterpretation of “Israel” in fact means the homogenous people of God. No, I must assert that these Jewish apostles held to a future hope for national and territorial Israel whereby the nation would eventually be saved by its Messiah and retain its identity among the saved nations (Isa 66:8,12; Acts 3:21–22; Rom 11:26–28).

Stephen Sizer wrote,

As Palmer Robertson also observes, by the end of the Apostolic era, the focus of God's redemptive work in the world has shifted from Jerusalem to places like Antioch, Ephesus and Rome. There is, therefore, no evidence that the apostles believed that the Jewish people still had a divine right to the land, or that the Jewish possession of the land would be important, let alone that Jerusalem would remain a central aspect of God's purposes for the world. On the contrary, in the Christological logic of Paul, Jerusalem as much as the land, has now been superseded. They have been made irrelevant to God's redemptive purposes. ...Their selective and dualistic hermeneutic leads Christian Zionists to ignore how Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament. ...Under the old covenant, revelation from God came often in shadow, image, form and prophecy. In the new covenant that progressive revelation finds its consummation in reality, substance and fulfillment in Jesus Christ and his church.²⁰

To suggest that the Jewish apostles, especially at the time of the Council at Jerusalem and apparently under the headship of James, did not believe that “the Jewish people still had a divine right to the land, or that the Jewish possession of the land would be important,” is sheer nonsense. In the plainest terms, we are told here that not only have Jerusalem and the land of Israel become irrelevant to God, but also that now they have become superseded. Here is unclouded, arrogant anti-Judaism that Paul so adamantly opposed in Romans 11. Perhaps we should be grateful here for the honest confession of supercessionism which others of a similar persuasion have attempted to ingeniously dance around. To attempt to claim support from Paul's “Christological logic” is to fly in the face not only of the apostle's passionate, persistent, pro-Judaic stance, but also of his repeated claim that he retained full status as a Jew or Israelite (Rom 11:1; Acts 21:39; 22:3). For Paul to be told that his Jewishness, so integrated with Jerusalem and the land as a “Benjamite,” was “irrelevant” would have invited the strongest disavowal (Rom 3:1–2; 9:1–5; 11:18–21). Yet the original promise of the land was not part of the old covenant; rather it was integral to the promise God originally gave to Abraham, 430 years before Moses, that eventually found the beginning of fulfillment through Joshua. The land is not identical with the shadows established through the Mosaic covenant (see chapter 9).

Steve Motyer has stated,

Throughout the New Testament, we see the first Christians wrestling with the relationship between the “new” thing that God has now done in Christ, and the “old” thing which he had done in Israel, and re-interpreting the latter in the light of the former. If we are to be New Testament Christians, we must do the same. ...Distinctive Jewish Christianity finally died out. ...The first Christians set themselves the wonderful, exciting task of completely re-thinking their understanding of the Scriptures, in the light of Jesus Christ. ...The New Testament ‘re-reading’ of the Old Testament promises sees their climax in Jesus, and makes him the ‘end’ of the story. The interpretation of Old Testament prophecy and other ‘Israel’ texts must be approached from the perspective of this basic New Testament teaching, and must follow the guidelines of New Testament interpretation. ...The New Testament writers are ‘normative’ for us, in showing us how to interpret Old Testament prophecy.²¹

To suggest that “the first Christians set themselves the wonderful, exciting task of completely re-thinking their understanding of the Scriptures, in the light of Jesus Christ,” especially by a “‘re-reading’ of the Old Testament promises,” is simply a reflection of Gentile blindness and bias. For theological convenience Motyer sets aside the Jewish apostles' continuing Jewish, albeit clarified, regard for the OT. They would be offended at the suggestion here that they had instigated a radically new hermeneutic. There was no such novel formulation. To declare that “distinctive Jewish Christianity finally died out” is to avoid mentioning the doctrinal conflict whereby it was “put to death” by proud Gentile ascendancy through Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis on through to Augustine. If the NT writers' re-interpretation of the OT had established a new, Christological, normative hermeneutic, then what of those frequent occasions in which they interpreted the OT quite literally? Has this literal hermeneutic now become sub-normal? Consider Bonar's comment:

In so far as prophecy has been already fulfilled, that fulfillment has been a literal one. Take the predictions regarding the Messiah. His being born of the house of David; of a virgin; at Bethlehem; being carried down to and brought up out of Egypt; His healing diseases; His entering Jerusalem on an ass; His being betrayed by one of His disciples; His being left by all His familiar friends; His being smitten, buffeted, spit upon; His side being pierced; His bones unbroken; His raiment divided by lot; His receiving vinegar; His being crucified between two thieves; His being buried by a rich man; His lying three days in the tomb; His rising on the third day; His ascending up on high, and sitting at the right hand of God; these and many others, have all been fulfilled to the very letter; far more literally than we could have ever conceived. And are not these fulfillments strong arguments in favor of the literality of all that yet remains behind? Nay, do they not furnish us with a distinct, unambiguous, and inspired canon of interpretation?²²

O. Palmer Robertson said,

Any transfer from the old covenant to the new covenant involves a movement from shadow to reality. The old covenant appealed to the human longing for a sure and settled land; yet it could not compare with the realities of new covenant fulfillment. This perspective is confirmed by a number of references in the new covenant documents. Abraham is declared to be heir, not of “the land,” but of “the world” (Rom. 4:13). By this comprehensive language the imagery of the land as a picture of restored paradise has finally come of age. No longer merely a portion of this earth, but now the whole of the cosmos partakes of the consummation of God's redemptive work in our fallen world.

This perspective provides insight into the return to the land described by Ezekiel and the other prophets. In the nature of things, these writers could only employ images with which they and their hearers were familiar. So they spoke of a return to the geographical land of Israel. Indeed there was a return to this land, though hardly on a scale prophesied by Ezekiel. But in the context of the realities of the new covenant, this land must be understood in terms of the newly recreated cosmos about which the apostle Paul speaks in Romans. The whole universe (which is “the land” from a new covenant perspective) groans in travail, waiting for the redemption that will come with the resurrection of the bodies of the redeemed (Rom. 8:22–23). The return to paradise in the framework of the new covenant does not involve merely a return to the shadowy forms of the old covenant. It means the rejuvenation of the entire earth. By this renewal of the entire creation, the old covenant's promise of land finds its new covenant realization.²³

To read Robertson's The Israel of God is to quickly discover his intoxication with the representation of virtually the whole OT as “shadowy, temporal forms.”²⁴ This is especially true with regard to the land's alleged temporal significance in view of Abraham's subsequent inheritance of the world in Rom 4:13. For some reason, it is vital for Robertson that this universal prospect should absorb, rather than include, the particularity of Israel, and thus eliminate national identity. The same emphasis on absorption, or supercession, is made by Wright, Chapman, and Sizer. Whereas it seems perfectly clear that since “in you [Abraham] all the families of the earth [the Gentile nations] will be blessed” (Gen 12:3), this broad prospect does not at all eliminate the distinctive inclusion of national Israel dwelling in the promised land under Christ surrounded by these same saved Gentile nations who are also under Christ. So Barrett rightly related Paul's exposition of Rom 4:13—which “summarize[s] the content of the promise [to Abraham]”—to Gen 22:17–18.²⁵ Thus the world includes the land of Israel “at the center of the world” (Ezek 38:12). Yet for Robertson, even the explicit restorationist language of Ezekiel is merely a necessary geographic accommodation to the times of the prophet that calls for a more universal perspective. But Bonar's response to this was that such a hermeneutic of accommodation, evidently unoriginal, was not at all necessary:

So far, then, from conceding the opinion that the prophets used language of the peculiarly Jewish, or, as we might call it, Mosaic cast, because they had no other by which to convey their representations of the future glory of the Church, we maintain just the opposite. ...The reason for which they [the prophets] used their peculiar style was, because it was the fullest, richest, and most exact that could be adopted; nay, because it was especially constructed by God to express that vast variety of ideas which prophecy unfolds, with a correctness, and, at the same time, with a power, of which common language did not admit.²⁶

I agree with Robertson that there will certainly be an eschatological “newly created cosmos” according to Rom 8:22–23. Yet I am once again at a loss to understand how this universal of a redeemed creation cannot include the particular of a redeemed national Israel, that is, except that the author cannot break free from the shackles of a rigid, unbiblical, eschatological homogeneity.

A Misguided Christocentric Hermeneutic

In the foregoing it should be noted that the anti-Judaic or supercessionist hermeneutic of Wright, Chapman, Sizer, Motyer, and Robertson is declared to be founded on a supremely Christocentric reinterpretation of the OT, even as Ladd propounded. In this view, a Judeo-centric eschatology is not sufficiently Christocentric since it is impeded by a more literal understanding of OT Judaism whereby its shadows are allowed to obscure the reality of Christ. In response it simply needs to be pointed out that the risen, glorified Christ never declared that His Jewishness would ever be abandoned, though a supercessionist hermeneutic would tend to require this. On the Emmaus road the two Jewish disciples were enthralled when “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He [Jesus] explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). Here was no imposition of Himself on Scripture, no reinterpretation of Scripture, but rather Jesus' fulfillment of Scripture at every hand which the disciples embraced, not as radically new, but rather as wonderfully fulfilling in terms of the promises of the OT.

We need to consider with closer scrutiny the extent to which Jesus Christ ought to be dominant in the interpretation of biblical eschatology as an overriding hermeneutical principle. Some would emphatically suggest that the more we “see only Jesus,” even in the OT, the more we are keeping to the heart of the Bible. So this Christocentricity in interpreting the OT, even as accentuated by Reformed hermeneutics, has to be right. But I must carefully assert, in upholding a Trinitarian perspective with regard to the headship of the Father, that it is possible for such an understanding of Christocentricity to be misguided.²⁷ This is not an insignificant point since it is common today, especially within Reformed Christianity as Thomas Smail pointed out in The Forgotten Father, for an incorrect prominence to be given to Jesus Christ (as though impossible to challenge) that results in biblical distortion.²⁸ For this reason, I believe Chapman, Sizer, Motyer, Robertson, and others take a legitimate Christological interpretive principle and give it a disproportionate primacy and driving emphasis. Bernard Ramm provided a more balanced approach when he recommended four principles for the interpretation of the prophetic segments of Scripture. The third was, “The interpreter should take the literal meaning of a prophetic passage as his limiting or controlling guide,” and the fourth, “The centrality of Jesus Christ must be kept in mind in all prophetic interpretation.”²⁹

Steve Motyer provides an example of this radical christocentricity. His perspective represents a variation of the more common type of supercessionism in which Jesus Christ replaces national Israel rather than the church. But the end result is identical, that is, the nullification of Jewish nationality and territory:

The view for which I am arguing in this paper does not see the church as the “replacement” for Israel, but sees Jesus in this role. ...In the opening chapters of his Gospel, Matthew deliberately tells the story of Jesus' birth, baptism, temptations and entry into ministry in such a way that Jesus' history replays the Exodus history of Israel. This is a dramatic re-telling of Israel's story, which would have been immediately obvious to Jewish readers, but can easily be overlooked by us. Jesus, too, goes down to Egypt by divine guidance, just like Jacob and his family. Then he comes out of Egypt in fulfillment of Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt have I called my son' (Matt. 2:15). Matthew knows full well that he is applying to Jesus a verse originally about the Exodus! He is giving a clue to help us interpret the significance of Jesus. Armed with this clue, we then see how Jesus passes through water, just like Israel on her way out of Egypt, and, just as for Israel, this is a defining moment in Jesus' relationship with God (Matt. 3). Then he is tested in the wilderness, just like Israel after the Exodus (Matt 4:1–11), and he quotes to the Devil three verses all drawn from the story of that wilderness testing of Israel, with flying colors. Finally, just as Israel came to a mountain where she heard God's ten “words”, constitutive of her life with him, so now Jesus climbs a mountain and utters the nine ‘words’ constitutive of life in the kingdom of God—statements not of duty, but of blessedness (Matt. 5:1–12). We could hardly ask for a clearer presentation of the conviction that Jesus steps into he role of Israel, in God's plan.³⁰

It is the hermeneutic that especially concerns us here. To begin with, apart from this conjectural extrapolation, there is not one explicit statement in the NT which supports the suggestion that Jesus Christ is the new covenant replacement for old covenant Israel. Strictly for the sake of argument, however, let us grant the rationale here that Matthew subtly portrays Jesus as the OT revelation of Israel. In allowing this subjective representation, where in all this is there the necessity for Jesus to replace Israel, and not simply be identified with them? A wonderful case can be made for the representation of Jesus by Joseph in Genesis, in spite of the fact that there is not one explicit verse of justification for this analogy to be found in the NT. Of course, this being the case, at best we are left with a good and helpful illustration. So Motyer's proposal is likewise at best a good and helpful illustration. However, to build a doctrinal case on this for the replacement of national Israel by Jesus is both extreme and unsound!

Robert Strimple, another Reformed theologian making a defense of the amillennial disenfranchisement of national Israel, likewise declared,

The true Israel is Christ. ...Yes, Israel was called to be God's Servant, a light to enlighten the nations and to glorify God's name. But since Israel was unfaithful to her calling and failed to fulfill the purposes of her divine election, the Lord brought forth his Elect One, his Servant, his true Israel.³¹

This particular claim of supercession is made without the slightest warrant from the NT. Yes, there is a sense in which the suffering Servant of Isaiah does take the name of “Jacob” and “Israel” (Isa 44:1), though I believe it is entirely arbitrary and unwarranted to suggest that it is a matter of replacement. I would suggest that by such terminology in Isaiah the Messiah intimately identifies with Israel because of a specific saving purpose that is in mind: “I [the Lord] will keep you [my servant], and I make you a covenant for the people [Israel] and a light to the nations” (Isa 42:6; see 44:21–23). But that “Israel” is consistently defined in the NT as the nation rooted in Abraham and never as the Gentiles wholly excludes the idea that Christ, or for that matter the church, have superseded Israel's national identity. As William Campbell explained,

Although we do acknowledge Jesus as the true Israelite, the ideal servant of God, we must not totally identify him with Israel. We cannot claim that Christ is Israel. ...Nor is it legitimate to claim that Christ displaces or becomes Israel. In such a theology, the humanity of Christ is obliterated with Israel, and the outcome is that we are left with a theological docetism that manifests itself as individualism.³²

Certainly I accept the truth that Jesus Christ, as the seed of Abraham, both represents and embodies the nation of Israel in a vivid sense; His intimate identification in this respect must not be downplayed. I would further agree that there does appear to be a helpful analogy between the exodus of Israel and the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.³³ But I object to the out of bounds portrayal here of Jesus Christ replacing national Israel to the point of elimination through transference.

A Christocentric Hermeneutic
for the Hebrew Scriptures

In contrast with the foregoing, I maintain that there is a right Christocentric method of interpretation that is relevant to all of Scripture. In the light of modern supercessionism, this hermeneutic especially addresses both the OT and the NT according to the unifying principle of Judeo-centricity. In other words, as the Scriptures of the whole Bible are mainly of Hebrew origin, and the Savior was Hebrew along with the founding church, then we should never cease to keep this Hebrew perspective before us. The Hebrew character of OT Scripture ought not to be regarded, in its literal form, as passé, and therefore the object of reinterpretation by the NT Gentile Christian. Tet-Lim N. Yee concluded,

It is my hope that the lasting impression of this study will be that the substantial contribution of Christianity is Jewish. Our assessment of Ephesians within the “new perspective” which helps us to gain a clearer view of the first-century Jews and Judaism has shown abundantly clearly that the theme of Jewish attitudes toward the Gentiles and ethnic reconciliation cannot be fully appreciated unless we give the enduring Jewish character of Christianity which is represented in Ephesians its due weight.³⁴

This does not simply involve being acquainted with extra-biblical Jewish sources but with that Jewish hermeneutic with which the apostles almost unconsciously breathed. This is especially to be the case when Gentiles desire to understand the Word of God. When the OT is quoted in the NT by a Hebrew author, we anticipate his use of an established Hebrew hermeneutic, not necessarily so familiar to the Gentile mind, though certainly not some supposed new, superseding, and radical hermeneutic. This is the point that Horatius Bonar made so well (see n. 14): “The apostle [as the author of Hebrews] proceeds upon certain principles of interpretation recognized among his countrymen. He did not write as one who had discovered a new theory of interpretation which he called on them to receive [emphasis added].” It follows that when the NT Jewish author quoted the OT, sometimes with a methodology that is not following the exact literal meaning, it is presumptuous to conclude that this usage nullifies the possibility of the original passage retaining literal validity. A more Hebrew based hermeneutic is preferred that remains based on a literal understanding of the text. I echo David Stern's comment that “the New Testament is a Jewish book, written by Jews in a Jewish context,”³⁵ as well as his explanation of the four basic modes of Scripture interpretation used by the rabbis. These are:

(1) P'shat (“simple”)—the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by “grammatical-historical exegesis,” which looks to the grammar of the language and the historical setting as background for deciding what a passage means. Modern scholars often consider grammatical-historical exegesis the only valid way to deal with a text; pastors who use other approaches in their sermons usually feel defensive about it before academics. But the rabbis had three other modes of interpreting Scripture, and their validity should not be excluded in advance but related to the validity of their implied presuppositions.

(2) Remez (“hint”)—wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth conveyed by the p'shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware.

(3) Drash or midrash (“search”)—an allegorical or homiletical application of a text. This is a species of eisegesis—reading one's own thoughts into the text—as opposed to exegesis which is extracting from the text what it actually says. The implied presupposition is that the words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, which God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all.

(4)Sod (“secret”)—a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at by operating on the numerical values of the Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters, and the like. ...The implied presupposition is that God invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even the individual letters.

These four methods of working a text are remembered by the Hebrew word “PaRDeS,” an acronym formed from the initials; it means “orchard” or “garden.”³⁶

Michael Vlach points to the same four categories, as referenced by Richard N. Longenecker, that would have been common knowledge to the authors of the NT.³⁷ Keeping these Judeo-centric hermeneutic principles in mind, we now turn to three examples frequently referenced concerning the manner in which OT passages are quoted in the NT. In these instances, it is wrong to allege that a new covenant hermeneutic, previously unknown, is introduced that nullifies the original, literal OT meaning (see my previous discussion of Hos 2:23; also see Rom 9:24–26).

(1) Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. At face value, the strict meaning of Hos 11:1 seems at variance with its use Matt 11:1. Hosea was plainly speaking of “Israel” when he declared, “out of Egypt I called My son.” But Matthew, having advised that the child Jesus had found refuge in Egypt from Herod, then anticipated His eventual return from Egypt as the fulfillment of Hosea's explanation, “out of Egypt I called My Son.” Has Matthew then introduced a new Christocentric hermeneutic that nullifies the former reference to Israel? Is Christ now identified as Israel? To begin with, it is important that the subsequent context of Hos 11:1 be considered. Whereas v. 1 introduces God's original redemptive love for Israel, vv. 2–7 tell of His relentless, compassionate pursuit, mingled with judgment, for a constantly rebellious, betrothed people. Yet vv. 9–11 reveal the eventual triumph of God's sovereign grace: “I will not turn back to destroy Ephraim. ...They will follow the LORD; ...Then I will settle them in their homes. This is the LORD'S declaration.” Clearly, the ultimate restoration of Israel is envisaged here, but if Matthew has introduced a new hermeneutic, this can be reinterpreted as simply the inclusive triumph of God's love for His people, quite apart from any more exclusive national considerations that have now been superseded. Not only is this unnecessary, but it also does not satisfy our reading of vv. 2–11. On the one hand, the literal interpretation of Hosea stands, and especially as this so obviously agrees with Ezekiel 36–37 concerning the future salvation of national Israel. On the other hand, as we have already considered, Matthew identified Jesus as the personification of Israel, though certainly not as a replacement, even as Isaiah identified the suffering Servant of the Lord as both Messiah and the personification of Israel. David Stern sees here “a [Hebrew] remez, a hint of a very deep truth. ...the Messiah is equated with, is one with, the nation of Israel.”³⁸ Therefore, Matthew did not reinterpret Hosea; he simply understood Hosea as fulfilled, for the restoration of national Israel will be inseparably related to that time when “the people of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king [Messiah]. They will come with awe to the LORD and His goodness in the last days” (Hos 3:5).

(2) Amos 9:11–12 and Acts 15:16–18. According to Amos 9:11–15, the future restoration of Israel is declared in terms of reconstruction for the house of David, inclusive of national deliverance for the Gentiles (vv. 11–12), recovery from destitution (v. 13), return from captivity (v. 14), and relocation in the promised land (v. 15). The quotation of vv. 11–12 by James in Acts 15:16–18 is deemed by those of a supercessionist persuasion to be proof that the Christian church has inherited the promises originally made to Israel through Amos. As amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger stated,

James saw the prophecy as fulfilled in Christ's resurrection, exaltation, and in the reconstitution of his disciples as the new Israel. The presence of both Jew and Gentile in the church was proof that the prophecy of Amos had been fulfilled. David's fallen tent had been rebuilt by Christ.³⁹

It is important to notice here that Riddlebarger, along with others who take a similar supercessionist stance, seems eager to disqualify the Jewish eschatological implications of the whole of Amos 9:11–15. For him, the hermeneutic of James—this quintessential Jewish Christian leader of the Jewish church at Jerusalem and the author of the Epistle of James—is supposed to have completely nullified the nation of Israel, the future restoration, and the land as he would have understood it, with one fell blow. This I believe to be highly unlikely, in spite of Motyer's extreme language that “in Acts 15:13–21 James dramatically re-reads Amos' prophecy of the restoration of Israel (Amos 9:11–12) ...[concerning] what God has done in saving Gentiles. It's a new action, demanding a new reading of Scripture.”⁴⁰ But James referenced Amos simply to indicate his agreement with Peter's experience that the Gentiles have been included in God's gospel program. In no way does this “reinterpret” Amos 9:13–15 where Israel's restoration to the land is specified. Even Robertson admitted that all of Amos 9:11–15 cannot be exclusively equated with the blessings of the present church age:

The present fulfillment of Amos' prophecy may be seen as only the “first stage” of God's consummation activity. The restoration of the Davidic throne takes on the lowly form of a “booth” or tent. Yet the first installment of the Spirit as possessed by Gentiles today guarantees the future restoration of all things. Endowed in the end with bodies transformed by the resurrection power of the same Holy Spirit, believers in Christ ultimately shall participate in the restoration of all things at the re-creation of heaven and earth.⁴¹

The obvious weakness remaining here is that Robertson still refuses to allow the inclusion of any eschatological future for the nation of Israel in the land. This is in spite of Amos 9:14–15 explicitly declaring, “I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel. ...I will plant them on their land, and they will never again be uprooted from the land I have given them.” As Kenneth Barker states,

What happened in Acts 15 constitutes a stage in the progressive fulfillment of the entire prophecy in Amos 9 (cf. Acts 15:12–15). It is an instance of direct fulfillment, but not the final and complete fulfillment, as the following verses in Amos (9:13–15) plainly indicate.⁴²

Similarly, from a Hebrew Christian perspective, Stern comments, “The complete fulfillment of Amos' prophecy will take place when the undivided realm of David's time is restored. Meanwhile, this is a beginning.”⁴³ In other words, the either-or hermeneutic of Reformed eschatology in which saved national Israel cannot coexist with the Gentile nations in the consummate kingdom of Christ does not mesh with the prophetic revelation here. The supposed necessity of Judaic exclusion, dressed in the language of supercession or transference, must yield to the both-and eschatology of one people of God in which Israel and the Gentile nations distinctively exist under Christ. When this fundamental issue is accepted, a change of temperament results whereby a shameful anti-Judaic attitude is supplanted by Pauline, pro-Judaic passion.

(3) Zech 12:10–14; John 19:37; Rev 1:7. According to Zech 12:1–9, the final eschatological attack on Jerusalem results in the Lord's intervention. So David Baron described prophetically,

Israel's great national deliverance and the destruction of the armies of the confederated anti-Christian world-powers which shall be gathered in the final siege of Jerusalem. That will, indeed, be a great and wonderful day in their history. ...But yet there is something greater, more solemn and more blessed, than mere outward deliverance and triumph over their enemies that Israel is to experience on “that day,” and that is God's final conquest over them.⁴⁴

Then the house of David will be redeemed by means of “the Spirit of grace and supplication” (v. 10). Here is the crowning act by which the Lord saves Israel. It is this Spirit which causes Israel to look, mourn, and weep (Ezek 36:26–27; 37:1–4,9–10,14; 39:25–29) concerning its crucified Messiah. By way of application, God saves the Jews in the same way as He saves the Gentiles, through Holy Spirit regeneration that gives the repentant sinner eyes to see Jesus as Savior. So there will be the piercing of the Lord's first-born (vv. 10b—14). Whereas it was Roman soldiers who pierced Jesus Christ, it was at the instigation of the Jews (Acts 2:22–23).

But what of John 19:37? Is this the sole and complete fulfillment of Zech 12:10? In view of the rest of vv. 10–14, undoubtedly not. Furthermore, consider the additional reference of Rev 1:7. As all of Israel paid off its shepherd (Zech 11:12), so all Israel pierced the Lord and will continue to do so in a corporate sense to the end of this age. In effect, John 19:37 refers to a fulfillment in part, that is, the specific incident of Messiah's piercing, but certainly not the whole of the national mourning yet to come. It is similar to the previous study of Amos 9:11–12, which was seen by James to be fulfilled in part in Acts 15:16–18. After Israel's national eschatological regeneration (Rom 11:12,15,26) there will be national, bitter, and prolonged weeping (Zech 12:10c-14). Undoubtedly such intensive and extensive mourning has not yet come to pass, though in recollection of the centuries of rejection, such thoroughgoing, consummate grief is not to be considered unexpected or inappropriate. Israel has grief “as one mourns for an only son,” even “over a firstborn,” and thus the deity of Christ as the only begotten of the Father is suggested. Feinberg added, “When the one who is greater than Joseph makes himself known to his brethren, they will be heartbroken with grief and contrition”⁴⁵ (Gen 45:14–15). There will not only be special mourning in Jerusalem (v. 11), but also total mourning throughout the land (vv. 12–14). Nevertheless, if Israel should so weep, then should any saved Gentile weep the less on account of his guilty participation in the piercing of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 4:27)?

The partial soteriological fulfillment of Zech 12:10 according to John 19:37 in no way diminishes anticipation of the eschatological repentance of national Israel. It may be that Rev 1:7 should be translated, “And all the tribes of the land will mourn over Him”⁴⁶ (see Matt 24:30); but if not, and “tribes of the earth” is substituted, the overall eschatological expectation of Israel's national repentance and salvation according to Zech 12:10 is in no way diminished.

In conclusion, we return to the fundamental character of the Reformed eschatological hermeneutic, here severally represented, which so vehemently disallows a diversity within the unity of Jesus Christ's consummate kingdom. I believe that for reasons more philosophic than logical, more historic than biblical, more systematic than exegetical, there is a tenacious refusal to allow a both-and situation for Israel and the Gentile nations. Indeed there has come about a Gentile fear for the perpetuation of Judaic influence on Christianity, as if the church at Antioch should supersede the church at Jerusalem—though Acts 15 indicates how invalid such a proposal is. The ethical results in this regard have not been inconsequential. It is as if history dominates, that is, Augustinianism reigns and holds exegesis in captivity. But history also indicates that in the realm of eschatology Augustine was terribly wrong and, so are those who follow in his eschatological steps regarding the disenfranchisement of national Israel. In this particular realm of divine truth, much of Reformed exegesis has been driven more by a historic hermeneutic rather than the principle of semper reformandum, “always reforming.” After all, Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Fairbairn, Bavinck, and Vos could not possibly be wrong! Or could they? They are all part of the same eschatological lineage that peers through essentially Augustinian lenses. If this patristic root, with its unsavory eschatology, does not result in the ripening of its fruit through the sweetening of sovereign grace, its continuance and bitter influence, after the manner of centuries of church history, will only result in branches that bring forth tart produce during this twenty-first century.

1. R. A. Muller, Christ and the Decree (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1986), 176.

2. G. E. Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” The Meaning of the Millennium (ed. R. G. Clouse; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 23. Similarly, Ladd concludes, concerning these OT passages, as employed in the NT, that “the church is in fact the true Israel of God.” A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), 433.

3. Ibid., 23–24.

4. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 584. But see chapter 10, where it is indicated how far more improbable Ladd's opinion here proves to be.

5. D. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992),392. Also refer to this author's commentary on the quotation of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15, where he lists the four basic modes of Scripture interpretation used by the rabbis. These are explained in more detail later in this chapter under the heading, “A Christocentric Hermeneutic for the Hebrew Scriptures.”

6. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Romans (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977), 264. Similar analogical interpretations are upheld by S. Lewis Johnson, “Evidence from Romans 9–11,” The Coming Millennial Kingdom (ed. D. K. Campbell and J. L Townsend; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), 203–11, and J. Murray, Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 2.38.

7. Consider the same form of amillennial argumentation, employing Romans 9:24–26; see Hos. 2:23; 1:10, in O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945), 156; W. J. Grier, The Momentous Event (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1970), 44; W. Hendriksen, Israel and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 57; H. K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1983), 130–31; C. P. Venema, The Promise of the Future (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 271–72.

8. G. E. Ladd, The Last Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 9–18.

9. W. C. Kaiser Jr., “The Land of Israel and the Future Return (Zechariah 10:6–12),” Israel, the Land and the People: An Evangelical Affirmation of God's Promises (ed. H. Wayne House; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 219. 222.

10. P. Ellingworth, Commentary on Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 37, 39.

11. J. Owen, An Exposition of Hebrews, I (Evansville, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1960), 106.

12. S. Kistemaker, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam: W. G. van Soest, 1961), 89n.