Israel-Church Relationship in Covenant Theology and in Typological Perspective
Heb 8:1-13). Biblical typology as taught by Christ’s apostles disallows the notion that the material types of the Old Covenant will be reintroduced into this history
after the church upon whom the end of the ages has come (cf. Heb 7:18).
82Clowney also follows suit as he avers that the “church in both the N.T. and the Old is the people of God, yet O.T. Israel is also a model, a type, in its earthly form, of the spiritual and heavenly reality of the church.”
83Robertson writes,
If the new covenant people of God are the actualized realization of a typological form, and the new covenant now is in effect, those constituting the people of God in the present circumstances must be recognized as the “Israel of God.” As a unified people, the participants of the new covenant today are “Israel.”
8472; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 698-700; Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 145-47; and Hendriksen, Israel in Prophecy, 34-52; and see also G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, Studies in Theology, trans.
James Van Oosterom, ed. Marlin J. Van Elderen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 335-52; Strimple,
“Ámillennialism,” 112-18; and Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 1025-30. O. Palmer Robertson “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, ed.
Kenneth S. Kanzer and Stanley N. Gundry [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979], 209-27), also held to this view originally, but more recently, in Robertson, The Israel of God, 167-92, he views the “all Israel” in Rom 11:26 to refer to the whole church, both Jew and Gentile. This is also the view of John Calvin and is well presented by N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 231-57.
81Karlberg, “The Significance of Israel,” 259; cf. Fairbairn, The Interpretation of Prophecy, 255.
82Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” 279; cf. Venema, The Promise of the Future, 290- 91.
83Clowney, “Interpreting Biblical Models,” 92, emphasis original. Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, 289, argues that Israel did not function merely as type, but its typological role is significant.
“The old covenant nation of Israel typologically anticipated the new covenant reality of the chosen people of God assembled as a nation consecrated to God.” For a basic overview of Israel as a type of the church, see Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1995), 38-39.
84Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, 289.
Therefore, although some covenantalists emphasize typological correspondences between Israel and Jesus (or describe Jesus as the “true Israel”)
85or directly link Israel with Jesus,
86typological connections are also maintained directly between Israel and the church in terms of fulfillment or less frequently, as replacement. Yet at the same time, the overarching covenant of grace administered through the covenants also keeps Israel and the church in direct continuity. This issue raises two significant problems when
considering the nature of these typological relationships for the ecclesiology of covenant theology.
First, there is a substantial question of how covenant theologians put together the typological relationship between Israel and the church. If OT Israel is typological of the church, then that would entail a qualitative progression and escalation between Israel and the church given how covenant theologians understand the characteristics of typology (and given the nature of typology as presented in chapter 2). If the “superior and eternal New Covenant that governs the church” is in effect, to use Waltke’s phrase, should there not be an escalated and heightened reality when it comes to the essential nature and structure of the new covenant community, the church, in comparison to OT Israel? Perhaps covenant theologians could offer that the escalation of the Israel-church typological relationship corresponds to the areas of the newness of the new covenant and fulfillment of the promises of Israel to the church. However, even with the contrast to the national, political, and theocratic Israel of old with the church encompassing all nations, possessing a
85Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach?,” 392, 395-97; Beale, Handbook, 53, 95-102;
Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 406-29, 651-56, 920-21; Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 27-58;
Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 87-90; Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 37, 68-70; Williams, Far as the Curse Is Found, 223-29, esp. 225; Dalrymple, These Brothers of Mine, 53-54. Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, frequently refers to Christ as the true Israel (e.g., 90). See also Alistair W. Donaldson, The Last Days of Dispensationalism: A Scholarly Critique of Popular Misconceptions (Eugene, OR: Wipf
& Stock, 2011), 53-59. Cf. William J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 178-79.
86Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1994), 126-29; Clowney, “The New Israel,” 218-20; Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 207-17.
greater distribution and empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, and having sin finally dealt with through the cross of Christ, covenantalists still argue that the NT church is one with Israel. The dual aspect of the covenant is still operative in the new covenant era, for there are covenant breakers in the new covenant community just as there were in the nation of Israel.
87The church, just like Israel, is a mixed community of believers and unbelievers.
In regard to essential nature then, there is no typological relationship between Israel and the church and, therefore, covenant theology cannot consistently frame Israel as a type of the church since the covenant communities are essentially the same given the basic continuity between the two.
88The entailment of understanding the new covenant as just another administration of the one covenant of grace theologically requires that the Israel- church typological relationship can only be applied in a truncated or inconsistent manner when one compares how other typological patterns are presented and understood by covenant theologians where the antitype always possesses a greater nature, intensification, and eschatological reality (such as the Exodus, temple, sacrifices, priesthood, and land as portrayed in Reformed theology).
How covenantalists typologically link Israel with Jesus is scripturally
appropriate, but a second problem emerges in light of the implications of the Israel-Christ
87On the other hand, Williams, Far as the Curse Is Found, 214, says that with the forgiveness of sins in the new covenant, sin “will no longer be a problem. Covenant breach will come to an end. While the new covenant shares much of the substance of the Mosaic covenant, it differs radically in its ability to effect the goal of covenant intimacy and obedience.”
88For example, the tension is observable when Mathison, Dispensationalism, 39, writes that national Israel was typological of the NT visible church: “The nation of Israel included both believers and unbelievers. The visible church (those who have made a verbal profession of faith) also includes believers and unbelievers. The relationship between Old Testament national Israel and the New Testament visible, professing church is not a relationship of equivalence but of type and antitype, or shadow and reality.” Cf.
Pratt, “To the Jew First,” 174-75. But how exactly is Israel typological of the church when Mathison strictly compares the two covenant communities as consisting of believers and unbelievers? Since both are mixed communities the comparison is between shadow and shadow, not between shadow and reality. The difference between Israel and the church is only on political and national terms according to Mathison, Dispensationalism, 38, but such is a very limited typological relationship and one, as we will see later, that does not comport with the nature of typological fulfillment in Christ, nor fit with the changes of the nature and structure of the church because of him.
typological relationship. If Jesus fulfills Israel’s promises and roles and the church is really the “true Israel” because of his manifold work on the cross, should not this new covenant community, now in direct union with Christ as their covenant head, a people now marked with the universal distribution of the Holy Spirit (Num 11:27-29; Ezek 36:25-27; Joel 2:28-32; John 7:28-39; Acts 2; Rom 8:9-11; Eph 1:13-14), known as the new humanity, the new creation, and God’s new temple, be different from OT Israel in terms of structure and nature? Covenant theologians will explain the Israel-Christ
typological relationship but generally do not address the theological entailments of that to their understanding of the nature of the church as she relates to Christ.
89Jesus is presented in terms of corporate solidarity as he embodies Israel’s hopes and fulfills Israel’s roles and tasks.
90Nevertheless, if Jesus represents Israel and typologically is the true Israel, then what implications does this have for the nature of the NT community, the church, which is described as being in faith union with Christ?
The covenantal framework also impacts the interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant in terms of what is typological. In his discussion of typology, Clowney notes that the metaphors of the church in the NT involve “a transformation of figures drawn from the O.T. At times the transformation is by way of contrast: for example, the change from the Passover meal to the Lord’s Supper, or from circumcision to baptism as the
89One exception is Beale, who writes that “all who identify with [Jesus] become adopted as true Israel (which, recall, is a corporate Adam) and, accordingly, inherit the promises as such. . . .
Accordingly, Christ as true Israel and the last Adam represents the church, so that the church becomes true eschatological Israel and part of the end-time Adam. Thus, far from being a narrow name, ‘true Israel’ really is a name that connotes true humanity.” Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 749, cf. 654-56. Beale’s quote comes from a chapter where he presents the church as the transformed and restored eschatological Israel because Israel’s identity and restoration promises are fulfilled in Christ and the church. However, if the church is the transformed and eschatological Israel, how could the covenant communities remain the same in terms of nature? The restoration of the remnant of Israel as seen in the fulfillment of Christ and in the church, as postulated by Beale, theologically requires the NT community of Jesus to be a completely regenerate covenant people.
90Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach?,” 392; Beale, Handbook, 53, 96-99; Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 192-93; Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 34; cf. brief discussion in Horton, The Christian Faith, 721.
initiatory rite of the people of God.”
91While circumcision is called a “figure” by Clowney, it is not genuinely identified as typological, at least as typology is defined and presented by covenantalists, since covenantalists argue that essentially the same spiritual meaning of circumcision comes across in the NT in the form of infant baptism.
92Moreover, the
91Clowney, “Interpreting Biblical Models,” 92. Interestingly, there is significant debate on the transition from the Passover to the Lord’s Supper in reformed circles as the topic of paedocommunion shows another area of confusion in regard to typological patterns. Some covenantalists argue that since children were involved in the Passover meal and because children in the new covenant era have already received the initial rite of the new covenant—baptism—then children should also be permitted to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Advocates of paedocommunion include Peter Leithart, Rich Lusk, and Gregg Strawbridge. See the collection of essays in The Case of Covenant Communion, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Monroe, LA: Athanasius, 2006). Arguing against paedocommunion are Cornelis P. Venema, Children at the Lord’s Table? (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2009) and the essays presented in Children and the Lord’s Supper, ed. Guy Waters and Ligon Duncan (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2011). As most covenant theologians rightly argue, the Passover and the Lord’s Supper do not have the same essential meaning as the Passover was a type of Christ’s sacrificial death that is commemorated in the Lord’s Supper and further, 1 Cor 11:27-32 restricts the recipients to those who are capable to examine themselves. If only paedobaptists would apply the same hermeneutic to the topic of circumcision and infant baptism they would avoid the tension that paedocommunion advocates are trying to avoid: passive subjects who receive the rite of infant baptism but active (believing) subjects are the only recipients of the continuing rite, the Lord’s Supper. As Jewett rightly points out, “Having embraced their children in the covenant by giving them baptism, Paedobaptists exclude them from that same covenant by refusing them participation in the covenant meal. Having reasoned from inclusive circumcision to inclusive baptism, they turn about and go from an inclusive Passover to an exclusive Eucharist.” Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism & the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 205.
92Clowney, The Church, 280-84; Booth, Children of Promise, 96-119; C. John Collins, “What Does Baptism Do for Anyone? Part I,” Presbyterion 38 (2012): 1-33. C. John Collins, “What Does Baptism Do for Anyone? Part II,” Presbyterion 38 (2012): 74-98. David Gibson, “Sacramental Supersessionism Revisited: A Response to Martin Salter on the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism,” Themelios 37 (2012): 191-208; Mark E. Ross, “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, 85-111. Note Charles T. Fritsch, “Biblical Typology,” BibSac 104 (1947): 96.
Fritsch does address circumcision as a “type,” but in a way more amenable to a baptist understanding. The Princeton theologian states, “The rite of circumcision had already been thought of in the Old Testament in a spiritual sense. The circumcision of the heart is mentioned in Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6;
Ezekiel 44:7, the circumcision of the lips in Exodus 6:12, 30, the circumcision of the ear in Jeremiah 6:10.
So in the New Testament the spiritual circumcision is contrasted with the physical, as seen in Romans 2:25- 29 and Philippians 3:3. In Colossians 2:11, 12 Paul argues that the circumcision of the flesh is no longer needed since the Christian is circumcized with a circumcision not made with hands, and then he goes on to describe this spiritual circumcision in the terms of baptism. In other words, just as in the Old Testament circumcision was the seal of that covenant relationship with God which was to bring salvation, so baptism in the New is the seal of that inward regeneration wrought by Christ.” See also G. K. Beale’s treatment in A New Testament Biblical Theology, 802-16. Beale identifies physical circumcision as a type of spiritual circumcision and the physical rite of baptism (808-9). But again, how can physical circumcision have typological fulfillment in physical baptism when they have the same essential meaning and are equivalent (as even Beale recognizes later, 816)? Like the Israel-church typological relationship, covenant theologians construe the typological relationship of circumcision to baptism in terms of the widening of the people who receive the sign of the covenant (baptism now applied to women and gentiles), but again, this fails to
genealogical principle (“to you and your seed”) is never handled in a typological way in covenant theology as covenantalists appeal to the “unconditional” nature of the Abrahamic covenant with the result that the physical or biological children of God’s people are always included in the covenant community throughout redemptive history. Hence, entrance into the covenant is granted to believers and their children in Reformed tradition, but such direct association between physical circumcision in the OT and baptism in the new must assume that the circumcision of the flesh was not typological of greater spiritual realities of the new covenant—circumcision of the heart for all members of the new covenant (Jer 31:28-34)—which is fulfilled with Christ having regenerate offspring (Isa 53:10-11, 54:1, 3; Eph 2:5-6; Col 2:12-13; Phil 3:3; Gal 4:26, 31; Titus 3:4-7).
93On the other hand, while circumcision and the genealogical principle are not regarded as typological in the Abrahamic covenant, covenant theologians understand the land promise as typological of the inheritance of heavenly rest. Why do covenantalists
adequately understand the eschatological heightening and escalation of biblical typology which requires discontinuity in terms of the nature of the type-antitype correspondence. For more critique of the
circumcision-baptism relationship in covenant theology, confer Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship,”
153-60.
93For critique of the paedobaptist assertion that the genealogical principle remains unchanged into the Messianic new covenant, see R. Fowler White, “The Last Adam and His Seed: An Exercise in Theological Preemption,” TrinJ 6 (1985): 60-73. Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, 289-90; Jonathan M.
Brack and Jared S. Oliphint, “Questioning the Progress in Progressive Covenantalism: A Review of Gentry and Wellum’s Kingdom through Covenant,” WTJ 76 (2014): 207-9; and David Gibson, “‘Fathers of Faith, My Fathers Now!’ On Abraham, Covenant, and the Theology of Paedobaptism,” Themelios 40 (2015): 26- 27, argue that the genealogical principle extends to the new covenant because Jer 32:39 teaches that the children of covenant participants are included in the promise and blessings of the covenant. However, within the broader context of Jer 32:36-44, Jer 32:39 describes the benefits the new covenant people of God receive in terms of restoration. The returning remnant (Jer 32:37) will dwell in safety and they will be his people (Jer 32:38; cf. Exod 19:5). However, these will have one heart and one way and they will fear the Lord forever (Jer 32:39). This will be for their good and the good of their children after them. The everlasting covenant made with them also means that God will not turn away from them and the fear placed in their hearts means that they will not turn away from him (Jer 32:40). Far from seeing this text as proof of the genealogical principle in the prophecy of the new covenant, the passage as a whole teaches the opposite.
The new covenant members will all have the fear of the Lord on their hearts (reminiscent of circumcision of the heart) and not turn away from the Lord. The benefits for God’s people are not just economic prosperity (Jer 32:42-44), but also that in the end it will be good for them and their children. Thus, there is no indication that children are automatically in the covenant community, the passage only confirms God’s goodness to the children of those who are wholly devoted to him and never turn away, being truly his people.
view the land as typological, but other features of the Abrahamic as not typological? First, given the continuity between Israel and the church within the framework of the covenant of grace, the land promise logically could not be preserved independently for national, ethnic Israel in the future. Such a literal fulfillment of the land promise strikes against the overarching covenant of grace and the unity of the one people of God in covenant
theology.
94Covenant theologians, therefore, treat the land promise as typological in one of two ways. First, some covenantalists link the land back to Eden and observe the expansion of the land promise in OT prophecies in arguing that the land points to a new heavens and new earth.
95Second, the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant is appealed to in regard to the Promised Land as lack of faithful loyalty to the Lord leads to covenantal curses and expulsion from the land (Lev 18:25-28; 26:14-26).
96While the land promises may seem unconditional, Reymond criticizes dispensationalists on this point:
Moses stated that the physical progeny’s obedience to God’s law was a basic requirement for inheriting and continuing to possess the land (Deut 4:25-31; 28:15- 68). While the land promises may appear at times to be unconditional, they always
94For example, Hoekema, The Bible and Future, 211, writes, “For [Israel] the land of Canaan was the land God had given to his people as their dwelling place and their possession. But the Old Testament is a book of shadows and types. The New Testament widens these concepts. In New Testament times the people of God no longer consists only of Israelites with a few non-Israelite additions, but is expanded to a fellowship inclusive of both Gentiles and Jews. In New Testament times the land which is to be inherited by the people of God is expanded to include the entire earth ” (emphasis original).
95Robertson, The Israel of God, 3-31; Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 750-72;
Waltke, Old Testament Theology, 534-87; Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1991), 69-73. Holwerda, Jesus and Israel, 85-112, does not link the Abrahamic promise of land back to Eden, but does trace the theme through the OT and into the NT. Pratt, “To the Jew First,” 183, summarizes the Reformed eschatological position on the land of Canaan as being fulfilled in the new heavens and earth.
96Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, 47, comments on this issue of retention of the land of promise: “Dispensationalism . . . treat[s] the land promise as eternal and irrevocable, even to the extent that there can be a difference between Israel and the church in God’s plan. . . . [This fails] to recognize that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves qualify this national covenant in strictly conditional terms.” “The principle of law is the basis for remaining in the earthly land; the principle of promise is the basis for entering and remaining in the heavenly land.” Ibid., 101. “To be sure, the land grant itself was based on God’s gracious deliverance of the people from Egypt, but it was now theirs to lose or keep depending on how well they did in their probation in the land.” Ibid., 130.