But if things are
so, to whom would the Scriptures apply which give warning of perilous times? To
whom could signs be given? This consideration has led to the Jewish
interpretation of Scripture. Whatever has been felt to be a difficulty has been
set aside by saying that it is “Jewish”; and that one word has been deemed to
be quite enough to show that it has nothing to do with the Church. On this
principle the application of very much of the New Testament has been avoided.
If Jewish circumstances of any kind are found in a passage, or if the persons
addressed were Jews by nation, these particulars have been relied on as showing
that it does not apply to the Church. But it must ever be borne in mind that,
however differing in external circumstances, the Church is one body, dwelt in
by one Spirit: the Jew and the Gentile, alike brought near to God by the blood
of Christ, are one in Him; so that Jewish circumstances or Gentile
circumstances do not affect the essential unity. The apostles were all of them
Jews; nevertheless, it is on the twelve stones inscribed with their twelve
names that the heavenly city is builded. It is quite true that there are
Scriptures which treat simply of hopes and promises for Israel; these, too,
shall be accomplished fully; but the acknowledgment that some portions of Holy
Writ are such, does not at all warrant the avoidance of the force of any part
of the Christian Scriptures. It is easy to see who are addressed--whenever the
Lord or an inspired apostle speaks to believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, they
are treated as part of the one Church. There are in the New Testament personal
addresses, corporate addresses, and teaching which might have to do with mere
temporary or local circumstances. Just so do we find in the Pentateuch
directions to Moses as an individual, precepts for guidance while in the
desert, and ordinances to be obeyed in the land. There is no difficulty in
distinguishing these things, unless, indeed, we choose to raise it for
ourselves.
If the application
of the Jewish theory of interpretation of definite New Testament prophecies be
carefully examined, it will be found to refute itself; for it will give to Jews
as Jews what most certainly belongs to the Church of Christ, and it will assume
that Jews in their unbelief are found using the authority of the Lord Jesus
Christ as a teacher. Thus, when Matthew 24
has been used as teaching how we are to expect the Lord, it has been repeatedly
said that it is entirely “Jewish”. Let this be granted. But what then? Who
are to use it, or to take heed to its warnings? No one can acknowledge Jesus
there as a teacher without owning Him as the Christ: “Many shall come in
my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (Verse 5). The persons
who will use the warnings, and who will expect the manifest appearing of
Christ, as here spoken of, must be believers in His divine mission, and thus
their profession must simply be that of believers in His name; in other words,
they must be a part of the Church of the first-born, to which all belong who now
accept the Lord Jesus as He is set forth by God.
An undefined term becomes an easy mode of explaining
away distinct statements which cannot be reconciled to a theory; because in
this manner no meaning whatever is assigned to the passages whose testimony has
to be avoided. This has been the case with the word “Jewish” in connection with
the Scriptures which teach the manifest appearing of the Lord in glory. In this
manner the three first Gospels have been called Jewish, whenever any portion of
their teaching was felt as a difficulty. So, too, the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and those of James and Peter.
And yet how very much of the most
blessed teaching for the Church is contained in these so-called Jewish portions
of the New Testament.
In order to avoid applications of certain Scriptures
to us, doctrines have been called Jewish also: thus it has been said that
Covenant, Priesthood, and Mediation, are altogether Jewish. To this it has been
added that the Church, “the body of Christ”, stands altogether above
everything of the kind; even “above dispensation” (whatever this may mean). It
would have been difficult to suppose that these opinions would have found any
acceptance, if such were not the known fact. What if the expression the New
Testament, or Covenant, stands in opposition to the Old Covenant with Israel?
It does not make the New Covenant a merely Jewish thing. Just as the Lord Jesus
said the night before He suffered, “This is my blood of the New Testament which
is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28); so, also, did the Apostle Paul teach as parts of His
words, and as applied to converted Gentiles, “This cup is the New
Testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:25).
[9] We might
as well say that “the remission of sins” is Jewish, and that the shedding
of the blood of Christ is Jewish: we might as well affirm that these have no
relation to us, as explain away Covenant and its connected truths. [10]
--------------------
[9] I have heard it maintained that the Lord's Supper, as
instituted and as recorded in the Gospels, is so simply “Jewish”, that the
command, “This do in remembrance of me”, would be no warrant to us for
observing it, if the Apostle Paul had not received of the Lord that which also
he delivered to the Corinthians, and to other Churches gathered from among the
Gentiles! What is this but building up a new wall of partition against believers
who are Jews by nature?
[10] See Appendix A
