The Right of The Firstborn
“If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath; that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his” (Deut. 21: 15-17).
The above passage is often left out of the reckoning by Replacement Theologians who say that God permanently excommunicated Israel in A.D. 70. Indeed, among the great majority of Preterists that is deemed the standard theme of our Lord’s Olivet Discourse. But as we have demonstrated several times, Replacement Theology, of whatever mold or make it may be, is patently untrue.
The quotation above once again confirms our view that it is impossible for God to permanently cast away Israel. For Israel is Jehovah’s firstborn (Exodus 4: 22; Jeremiah 31: 9). According to the above statute, it is unlawful to set the firstborn aside in preference to another, or to deny him the double portion.
But this is exactly what Replacement Theologians do. They assert that Israel was cast away in A.D. 70, without any hope of a restoration according to a fulfillment of the law and the prophets – notwithstanding that Jesus Christ said that every jot and tittle must be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5: 17).
We, on the other hand, believe that Israel is a married wife (Jer. 3: 14), which though set aside for a season (Hosea 3: 3-4), will yet be recalled by Jehovah (Isaiah 54: 6-8) and blessed with a double portion during the Millennium (Isaiah 61: 7). For it is not in the Lord’s counsels that Israel should be cast away:
(Hosea 11: 8-9) “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not come against the city.”
Admah and Zeboim were cities which were destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut. 29: 23). The nation of Israel will not suffer the same fate. For Jehovah is God and not man! Although man would have Israel cast away forever, the Lord promises to restore them. He expressly affirms, through His inspired prophet and mouthpiece, that He will not destroy Israel. Because He is God and changeth not, the sons of Jacob are not consumed (Malachi 3: 6). The gifts and calling of God are without change of mind (Romans 11: 29). That settles the issue of Replacement Theology.
The church is not Israel, but is likened to an espoused bride (2 Corinthians 11: 2). The marriage has not yet taken place. Whereas Israel is a married wife. R.T.’s need to note this difference, because it forms a real distinction between Israel and the church. The church is being built up during the time when Israel abides in blindness. This blindness is not permanent (Romans 11: 11), but will be removed at the Lord’s second coming (Romans 11: 26-27; Isaiah 29: 18-19).
The church does not receive blessings here on earth. The church’s blessings are in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1: 3). Israel’s blessings are on earth, and to them pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises (Romans 9: 4). Let R.T.’s take careful note of that last statement: to Israel pertains the promises. And Jesus Christ came to confirm these promises (Romans 15: 8).
In no Scripture does it state that the church has “replaced” or “superseded” Israel. This is an unbiblical figment of man’s theology, and comes from a Roman Catholic mindset in which it is assumed (without Biblical warrant) that the visible church receives all the promises made to Israel. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the very church which gave us the sale of indulgences and the veneration of icons is she which hath replaced Israel.
No. That is simply not true! Israel was never replaced, but only set aside for a season, that salvation might go out to the Gentiles. The Gentiles do not inherit any of Israel’s earthly blessings. Israel has already been adopted to receive these blessings, and nothing can or will annul God’s decree. However, the church can and does receive spiritual blessings, which Israel will also enjoy during the Millennium (Jer. 31: 31-34). And this will be the “double portion” that Israel receives. May all of God’s promises reach fruition.
Maybe It Ain’t Quite Like They Thought It Was
Since I started this blog back in July of 2008, I’ve had lots of correspondence from people who endorse the Preterist view. Preterists basically believe that most, if not all, of Bible prophecy was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The view strongly relies on the support of liberal scholarship, and agrees with that perspective known as “Replacement Theology.” Preterists believe that the church is the “true Israel.” And thus Christians who look for the future restoration of Abraham’s natural descendants are branded as misguided and erroneous – sometimes even subversive.
But when one hears these views espoused, one really has to wonder whether or not proponents of Preterism have seriously studied their Old Testaments. For even after the fulfillment of the curses of Deut. 28 (which Preterists say happened in A.D. 70), a restoration is promised, during which the Lord will re-gather His scattered people and bring them into the land of their fathers (Deut. 30: 1-5). This will be accompanied by the regeneration of the remnant (Deut. 30: 6) and judgments upon the Gentiles (see Deut. 30: 7). According to the Old Testament prophets, the Gentile judgments are inextricably tied to the outcome of the Day of the Lord (see Zephaniah 3: 8; Micah 5: 15; Zech. 14: 3).
Nobody who studies the Old Testament according to its grammatical, lexical, and obvious sense, will fail to see that Israel’s predicted blessings will be realized at the Lord’s second coming.
Even prophecies which speak of the New Covenant look forward to a restoration of the literal city of Jerusalem (Jer. 31: 38-40). It is simply impossible to discount the many prophecies which speak of Israel’s ultimate salvation and restoration, without wilfully ignoring the entire meta-narrative of the Old Testament. And the New Testament doesn’t trump that, either. For Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15: 8). And Paul says that the “gifts and calling of God are without change of mind” (Romans 11: 29).
One of the reasons I am a Dispensationalist, is that I believe in the literal, historical fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ. The prophecies regarding Christ’s first advent were all fulfilled in what spiritualizers would probably consider a ridiculously literal fashion. And yet past realization forms the foundation and precedent for future fulfillment. Even Preterists utilize this working principle when they (wrongly) cite Old Testament passages in support of their allegorical reading of Matthew 24.
But the prophets speak in literal terms. Consider, for example, the New Testament fulfillment of Isaiah 53: 4, in which the prophet said: “Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” Well, says the allegorizer, this must be restricted to something spiritual. No, says the New Testament! It involves physical healing of the sick (see Matt. 8: 16-17). We are not suggesting that the prophecy doesn’t also include spiritual healing (that is obvious from a literal reading of Isaiah). However, the New Testament record declares that the “fulfillment” of Isaiah 53: 4 was literal and historical in nature.
Now, since the Old Testament makes no distinction between the first and second advents of Christ, how are unfulfilled Messianic texts to be interpreted? They must not be carelessly relegated to Christ’s first advent, as some of the church fathers used to do. For if the Messiah’s work was totally fulfilled with His first advent, what need was there for a second coming? Neither should we relegate second advent prophecies to any A.D. 70 ‘judgment coming.’ For according to Preterists, that was not a personal coming of Christ. Yet the Old Testament Messianic prophecies deal with a literal, historical Jesus. Will Preterists be so bold as to claim that the Old Testament never refers to the second advent? If that is the case, then what Scriptures was Paul using when he taught Christ’s second coming? Ah, thou art beginning to see my point, young man!
The simple fact is, that the Old Testament predicts both advents of Christ, and the New Testament makes the distinction between the two, which allows us to go back to the O.T. and see which prophecies were fulfilled, and which remain future. Lest we be lost in confusion, all Messianic prophecies are to be interpreted according to the same “normative” hermeneutic. And once this principle is followed, it becomes clear that Israel will be saved and restored at Christ’s second advent. Paul says so (see Romans 11: 25-27).
Of course, I don’t have any personal complaint against those who endorse the Preterist view. I actually have friends who are Preterists! Nor do I have any personal problem with those who stand against Dispensational theology as a matter of principle – so long as no fines or anathemas are levied upon those (like myself) who respectfully disagree with them. My main complaint is against that straitened dogmatism which seeks to nullify the promises of God, and wipe Israel off the prophetic board. It is largely because of such views that this site exists. As long as Preterism remains an active theology on the internet, my business here is to point out the glaring possibility that perhaps — oh, just perhaps! — prophecy ain’t really like they thought it was. Maranatha!
