God's favor in the OT

[dsm1]

In reading the OT, I find that most (if not all) times God speaks of the rewards to His people for their obedience and faithfulness to the covenant, and His favor toward them, He promises earthly and temporal rewards. However, it has always been my understanding of the New Testament that we are not to seek earthly blessings or temporal rewards, but to "store up for [ourselves] treasures in heaven." I do not interpret Scripture as a "best life now" situation, where God wants to give us lots of money, land or cattle (to parallel OT times...) to show us His favor. In summary, I just don't know how to reconcile the dichotomy between physical blessings of the OT showing God's favor and rewards for obedience, and spiritual blessings of the NT for the same things.

[Mike Miller]

Your question is a great one. Essentially, the Old Covenant was ultimately between God and Israel; not between God and individuals. As one commentator says, "the people must decide," "Israel agrees," "they say as a body . . . ," "Israel will obey God," and "God will bless Israel." The promises of the covenant are dependent on the people of Israel (collectively) keeping the covenant stipulations. This is why people who broke the covenant at times were subject to harsh penalties such as exclusion from the community and even death. They jeopardized the entire nation. So, God tells the whole nation that if they will keep his covenant, the whole nation will be blessed. Moreover, the covenant even contains laws about how to treat the poor, which indicates that not everyone--even the faithful--would be wealthy individuals. This also explains why God repeatedly judged the entire nation for their unfaithfulness (even when some within were still faithful). When entire community became corrupt and stopped maintaining covenant faithfulness for the people, they encountered the curses instead of the blessings.

The New Covenant would be one that could not be broken and would be very personal, with the law of God written on men's hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34; 32:40). It would be (and is) radically different from the first covenant. In short, the first covenant was with a people, and the second is with individuals. The first contained promises of physical blessings for the entire nation but did not promise eternal life for everyone in the nation; the second contains promises of spiritual blessings but does not promise any physical blessings.

[charliedale]

Follow up question: What was God's purpose in establishing this type of Old Covenant with a nation? Why not just skip straight to the personal salvation part?

[Mike Miller]

Well, of course, unless God states something explicitly, we have a hard time reaching firm conclusions about His purposes for what He does. However, let me say that salvation has always been personal, but covenant has not. The Old Covenant was with a nation--perhaps so that God would have a particular people among all the other nations so that He could show Himself as the one true God as opposed to the false gods the others had. Therefore, since He was establishing a "people," he dealt with them collectively in the covenant. But the covenant never led to salvation. The Old covenant was to point people to Jesus by revealing the righteousness of God and the unrighteousness of man (see Romans 3:1-8; 7:7-12). Salvation, however, has always been between God and the individual. Not all Israel are the people of God. Not all who were born Jews and circumcised were truly saved (Romans 2:28-29; 9:1-8). Only those who were of the faith of Abraham were the ones who were justified (Romans 4).

Therefore, my answer to your question is that I don't know exactly why God has chosen to do things the way He has done them. But I do know that salvation has always been a matter of faith on the part of the individual.

[charliedale]

Pastor Mike,

Passages like these:

Galatians 3:7 "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham."

2 Corinthians 1:20 "For all the promises of God find their Yes in [Christ]."

Ephesians 2:15 "by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace."

Passages like these have led some to the conclusion that now that the New Covenant has come, the Old Covenant no longer applies to ethnic Jews. All the promises of the Old Covenant find a deeper spiritual meaning in Christ, and God doesn't have two people "Israel and the Church" but one: "The Church--the New Israel".

Others insist that God's OT promises continue to apply to modern day Israel and that as good Christians we should support Israel as a matter of faith. (Of course, there can be other very good reasons to support Israel, but some in Evangelicals treat it as a matter of obeying God's Word.) They say that God's promises to Israel are not voided but will be fulfilled in history.

These two interpretations tend to influence a person's eschatology. I personally lean toward the first group. How do you understand this issue?

[Mike Miller]

The belief that God has two different groups of people--Israel and the church--is somewhat popular, mainly because of the influence of dispensational theology on the contemporary church. While John Nelson Darby first developed dispensationalism in the 19th century, it became popular through the writings of C. I. Scofield and his reference Bible, which was first published in the early 20th century. The theology was most thoroughly systematized by Lewis Sperry Chafer, who founded Dallas Theological Seminary. Essentially, dispensationalists divide biblical history into seven periods ("dispensations") based on the ways they contend God has related to His people. Perhaps the two most common beliefs, which are held by many who are not what we might call classic dispensationalists, are pretribulation premillennialism and the distinction between the church and Israel.

In addition to the passages you referenced, Romans 4-11 makes clear that the true Israel consists of those who are of the faith of Abraham. Paul goes to great lengths to make the case that ethnic Israel is in the same condition as the rest of the world regarding salvation. All are lost and in need of a savior and are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Unbelieving Jews are cut off from God's family, while believing Gentiles are grafted in. God has one group of people only, and that is the church, also known as the true Israel.

Dispensationalists also believe that after the tribulation and before the millennium, all nations will be judged based on how they treated Jewish people, especially during the tribulation. Some form of this belief is also held by many non-dispensationalists. We regularly hear about how America should always support Israel since the Jews are God's chosen people. Under the Old Covenant, Israel was indeed God's chosen nation, but God's chosen people are those who are in Christ. The New Testament says nothing about nations being judged as a whole, but rather individuals will stand before God in judgment. Moreover, we should be careful about giving Israel a blank check. What if they decide to start dropping nukes on their neighbors? Do they get a free pass because they are Israel? Or would the right thing be to support righteousness and freedom?

Also, dispensationalists believe all the Old Testament promises and prophecies will be fulfilled in national/ethnic Israel. However, as you pointed out, 2 Corinthians 1 says that the promises find their fulfillment in Christ. Hebrews 8 explains how the promise of a new covenant with Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is now fulfilled in the church. 1 Peter 2:10 says that the church is the chosen race and the holy nation. Simply, Israel is important, but true Israel consists of all those who believe in Christ, also known as the church.

So, I affirm your position: One people--the New Israel--the church.