When we are reading Scripture, what is our primary method for understanding its contents? Do we seek signs in the sky to discern its meaning? Do we close our eyes, let the Bible fall open where it may, point to a verse to determine "this is what the Word says to me" and end at that? Or perhaps we're slightly more sophisticated than that and we appeal to tradition to adjudicate its meaning. Or should we use a literal method of understanding what the text says?
In any discussion of how we understand Scripture, we must consider reformation principles. The Reformers' methodology was one born of conflict with Rome. "Scripture plus tradition": this was Rome's cry. "Tradition has equal authority with Scripture. Without tradition, we are, at best, wandering in a forest at night with a candle." The Reformers responded by shouting "Sola Scriptura! Sola Scriptura! Sola Scriptura!"–"Scripture alone is our authority." Tradition is a guide, but a fallible one. Tradition cannot stand on equal footing with Scripture.
The Reformers said we must follow the analogia fidei–the analogy of faith. This means that no part of Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to render it in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture–sacra scriptura sui interpres–sacred Scripture interprets itself. If there are two contradictory interpretations, the one in closest harmony with the unified teaching of Scripture is to be adopted. This is an organic, internal approach to handling Scripture. Luther points to Christ as being the consistent internal message of Scripture. For Luther, "christocentric" means gospel-centered interpretation. Calvin states that any attempt to point to any authority (tradition, the church) outside Scripture is "neatly refuted by the word of the apostle." (Eph 2:20)
This naturally points to the best, most accurate way to interpret the Scriptures–the apostolic authors themselves. Calvin's statement indicates that the apostles, those divinely inspired, providentially guided writers, are the best interpreters; not tradition, not the church, but those who penned the words themselves. These men give us the pattern to follow in understanding sacred Scripture. They teach us to understand Scripture in its natural sense–using one passage of Scripture to illumine and explain another, and not to foist an artificial method ("literalness," for example) upon Scripture.
The Word of God unfolds internally when the apostles interpret Scripture for us. The apostles used symbolism, metaphor, simile, and hyperbole in Scripture; these are all apostolic methods of interpreting Scripture. Now that this explanation of the apostles' method is behind us, we can attempt to demonstrate its efficiency.
Seed of the Woman, Seed of the Serpent
The Reformers understood that God worked with people in a unique way. God establishes a relationship with them unilaterally and then nurtures that relationship throughout its entire existence. As early as Genesis 2:15 we see God investing man with the right to rule over the earth. Adam's rule had a qualification–the prohibition from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then came a suitable helper for Adam, one with whom Adam could rule and populate the earth. However, Adam violated the terms of his qualified sovereignty and brought death upon mankind. The Father, however, would not abandon his relationship with man and said that victory would be won through the "seed of the woman." From Genesis 3 onward, we see the organic unfolding , as from a bud to full bloom, of the relationship that God establishes with his people. Beginning with Seth, moving to Mahalalel, to Noah, through Shem, Nahor, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Judah, David, and ultimately Christ, we are swept along in the progressive development of God's redemptive working with his single unified people that he chose for himself. In the accounts of Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob and Esau we see the constant drama of the tension between the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. God is always actively orchestrating the maturation of his people.
Covenant
This relationship that God established with a people of his own choosing is called a covenant. The covenant is an act of commitment and involves a customary oath-form. The covenant is a type of legal arrangement, but the presence of the oath-form underlies its religious nature. Covenant-making is accomplished through a solemn proceess of ratification. This transaction centers upon the "swearing of an oath," with its corollary curse. Since the characteristic ratification rite was one of slaying and cutting animals to symbolize the curse that would befall the breaker of the oath, the expression "to cut a covenant" became the idiom for this transaction. In Gen. 9:6-8 we see God referring to his relationship with Noah as a covenant. In Genesis 17 we see the ratification of the Abrahamic covenant with the sign of covenantal ratification being instituted–circumcision. There is a relationship between cutting and circumcision and inclusion into the covenant. So here we have the demonstration of God establishing his covenant with his people (not peoples) and it is ratified by the sign of circumcision, the cutting away. In Genesis 15:9-18, Abram brought animals to God, cut in two, and God passed a smokepot between the halves. This was a vivid visual demonstration of the curse of violating the covenant, the cutting away.
One Covenantal People
God has now established his covenant with Abraham. How does that affect us? Abraham was Jewish; we are not. We must now rigorously adhere to what we learned earlier, that Scripture interprets Scripture, with the apostles as our guides. Remember, we began by discussing God's relationship with his people and we traced that relationship from Seth to Christ. One genealogical line. The seed of the woman was initially Seth, but through this Godly lineage Christ arose. In Genesis 15:18 the covenant is with Abraham's seed, not seeds (compare Gal 3:16). In Genesis 17 circumcision is a sign of covenant ratification and identifies covenant people, Christ's people. (Phil 3:2-3, Col 2:11-12, Gal 3:29) In Isaiah 41:8-9, 42:1-6 and 45:40 there is a transition from nation to person. Israel is the Lord's servant and that servant is a person. (Mt 2:15) Consider Acts 7:38. Stephen, in his address to the Sanhedrin, refers to Israel as the "church in the wilderness." Now, if there was such a sharp distinction in the minds of the apostles between Israel and the Church, why didn't Luke add some editorial footnote to this verse explaining that distinction? Why isn't there an attempt to ensure that Luke's readers wouldn't confuse or identify the two?
The complement to Acts 7:38 is Galatians 6:15. In Galatians, Paul is attempting to correct the Judaizer heresy by arguing that there is no reason for the Church to keep Old Testament ceremonial law, especially circumcision. He concludes by saying "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God." (Gal 6:15-16) Here Paul identifies the Church as the Israel of God.
There are other ways in which the New Testament writers point to the unity between the Church and Israel. In Psalm 77:20, the Psalmist calls Israel "a flock"; Paul uses the same term in reference to the Church. (Acts 20:28-29) Isaiah calls the "great comforter" a shepherd over Israel. (Is 40:11) Jesus calls himself the good shepherd over his sheep in John 10:21. In Deuteronomy 7:6 Israel is called a holy, chosen people. Peter uses the same references for the Church in 1 Peter 2:9-10. And finally, when Israel is engaged in apostasy, Israel is viewed by God as adulterous (Hos 1, 2; Is 1:21) because the Church is the bride of Christ. (Rv 21:2, Eph 5:25)
There is ample evidence, if Scripture is allowed to interpret itself, to demonstrate the unity of Israel and the Church as God's one and only people throughout the ages. Let's conclude by examining two passages of Scripture. In Jeremiah 31:33-34 the prophet writes, "I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. …For they shall know me, from the least to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
This was written while Jeremiah was in the midst of a rebellious nation. Still, he saw a day when Israel would be restored to God. In Hebrews 8:8-12 the writer of the epistle applies the very words of Jeremiah to the Church! Jeremiah was correct: Israel was restored to God. This old covenant that Jeremiah speaks of is seen as inferior and to be replaced by the mediator of a new and better covenant–Christ. This is made possible by the sufficient sacrifice of Christ. There is no longer any reason to expect a reinstitution of the bloody temple sacrificial system (Ezekiel 40-48 as interpreted by dispensationalists) because Christ's sacrifice and institution of the New Covenant makes the old covenant obsolete! Christ is the true temple. (Compare Is 2:2-4 and Mi 4:1-3 with Mt 12:6, Jn 2:19-22 and Rv 21:22.) He is the true vine. (Compare Jer 2:20-21, Ez 17:1-10 and Hos 10:1 with Jn 15.)
Finally, Romans 9:1-13 should resolve any further difficulty we have with the question at hand. Paul wants to make certain that no one assumes he has become anti-semitic (v. 1-3). He points out that Israel has a great and glorious heritage (v. 4-5) and that even the Messiah of all nations descends from them (v. 5). But there is concern on the part of the Apostle, because the very people who have all these blessings have rejected the Messiah who came for them. But this rejection is not total because the true Israel is seen in Isaac. Not all who are of Israel are of Israel, only the children of the promise (v. 6-8). Paul is speaking of two lineages, the physical descendants of Abraham's seed who are not the true Israel (v. 7), and the spiritual descendants of Abraham's seed through Isaac, who are the true Israel. These are the receivers of promise, not those who are physical descendants of Abraham, but spiritual descendants (v. 8). This is clearly manifested in the way God chose his children–before they were born (v. 11). God chose Jacob over Esau while the former was still in the womb. There was nothing impinging upon God's decision; not current social custom, not coercion, not physical lineage–nothing; it was purely by sovereign grace (v. 11). There is a reason for rejoicing in the future salvation of Israel, because the true Israel, of the spiritual heritage of Isaac will be saved. (Rom 11:25-26)
We see now quite clearly, that Scripture, when allowed to interpret itself, presents a single spiritual seed of Abraham. (Gen 15:18; Gal 3:16, 19, 29) Once separated from the promises, excluded from the citizenship of Israel, foreigners form the covenants. Gentiles are now grafted into the true vine, made partakers of the blessings, no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's single, unified people (Rom 11:11-36, Eph 2:11-21). There is no advantage based on genetics or ethnic heritage. This is the people of God providentially protected throughout all of redemptive history. These are the inheritors of the promises of glory–the Church, the Israel of God.
