It is clear from the New Testament record that those assigned to be leaders of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ are accountable to confront and correct teachings that do not align with the words of Jesus and with doctrine that leads to godly living (1 Timothy 6:2-4). Recently, a dangerous teaching referred to as “Dual Covenant Theology” has been exposed. I would like to address it with the hope that believers will be better equipped to discern truth from error in their journey with Christ, and that correction and restoration will happen with those who are now espousing this unorthodox doctrine.
I was recently privileged to participate in a roundtable discussion sponsored by Morningstar Ministries led by Rick Joyner. In our discussions, a serious concern was voiced by all present regarding John Hagee’s latest book, In Defense of Israel. In this book, Hagee puts forth his belief that Jesus was not Israel’s Messiah and that the Jews have their own covenant with God apart from the way Gentiles come to God through Jesus Christ. Hagee is an avowed Zionist. He is an influential voice among evangelical Christians through his church, TV programs and his work with Jewish leaders. His has organized Christians United for Friendship to Israel through which he promotes special events to support the nation of Israel and its agenda. Although there is evidence that this has been his position for at least 20 years, it has not been widely accepted that Hagee held to dual covenants.
Rick Joyner, in his response to Hagee’s position, is very strong in seeking to protect the Body of Christ as well as offering Hagee an opportunity to repent. In his Morningstar Strategic Team newsletter, Joyner lists three objections with the Dual Covenant theology as presented by Hagee:
- It undermines the very mission of Jesus as the Messiah.
- It so butchers the Scriptures and their intended meanings that it opens the door wide for almost any interpretation or misinterpretation of them.
- This doctrine is promoted in a way that challenges basic logic…
I agree with Rick Joyner’s objectives of protecting the Body of Christ and offering Hagee an opportunity to repent. In addition, I would like to further explore his second objection: that Hagee is promoting an improper approach to interpreting the Scriptures. I believe the revealing of this Dual Covenant error can have a positive end-result in the church, if we can learn something about a proper approach to sacred Scripture.
Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, and he is the final exegesis of truth. As such, he has the right to interpret Scripture to us. After his death and resurrection he gave priority to teaching his disciples how to interpret the Old Testament. On the Emmaus road and in the subsequent upper room experience, he explained to them all the Scripture from a Christ-centered perspective (Luke 24:13-49). Matthew’s Gospel account is about the fulfillment of Old Testament promises, types and prophecies in Christ. Luke shows how Jesus is the answer to the dilemma created by Adam and is the full sacrifice for the sins of mankind. John shows through signs and teachings how Jesus is the last and best of all God’s acts and words of revelation. And so the New Testament goes on to reveal the rest of the story that the Old Testament began. Without the explanation of the New Testament, the story ends with a mild thud. Paul was severely persecuted by Jews who accused him of being against the Jewish people, the Law and the temple. He was just preaching Jesus as the center of God’s program and the subject of history. They were demanding then, as many Zionists are now, the restoration of the temple, the law, and the land. I think we can all see through the pages of the New Testament that Jesus fulfills the purpose of each of these. His people, including believing Jews and Gentiles, become the temple. They are filled with the Spirit, thus fulfilling the Law. They inherit the land of the whole earth in which to witness to the new covenant made through Jesus the Messiah.
Why is all this important? Because the approach to Scripture that has allowed John Hagee to move into a heretical belief consists of an ultra-literal interpretation that concludes there are two peoples of God with two distinct purposes.
Rick Joyner, in the same newsletter mentioned above says, “There is some obvious truth to what is considered Replacement Theology, the teaching that the church replaces Israel in the prophecies of Scripture. However, those grafted in by their faith are the ‘true Israel of God’, which is clearly taught in the New Testament, but the problem comes with many of the prophecies that were very obviously meant for ‘natural Israel’, or those who are Jews according to the flesh.”
I am wondering how Rick or anyone else knows which prophecies are just about “natural Israel” and which ones are about Jesus? Are there covenant promises in Scripture that are not related to Christ? Are there some that are not fulfilled in him? What part of the inheritance does not transfer through Jesus? If Jesus is the Seed of Abraham and the promise God made to Abraham is fulfilled in Christ, where is there room for another program featuring another people? And who has the inspirational authority to declare that a prophecy of the Old Testament is fulfilled in some contemporary event?
The New Testament writers being moved by God’s inspiration could say “This is that” referring to some Old Testament prophecy being fulfilled in their day (Peter does this at Pentecost interpreting Joel), but since the close of the cannon does anyone know for sure when it happens? Some of the reformers thought for sure they had identified the Antichrist in the papacy. Today, others are finding him in other figures. History has not been kind to those who have professed to identify fulfillment of prophecy in their days. Much is made by Zionists confidently declaring that the establishment of Israel as nation in 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy. Who says? Maybe. It is remarkable and historically significant, but who has the inspirational authority to declare that it is the fulfillment of specific prophecy? Has someone with the same level of authority as Paul or Peter explained that to us?
Among those who espouse a premillennial view of Israelites being restored to the land, it is interesting to see the gradual evolution of emphasis throughout history. In the early days, there were great men who held a premillennial view but not dispensational premillennialism. They believed there would be huge a repentance toward Christ among Jewish people, and then a restoration to the land. Evangelism was a priority among those who held such a view. When the Jews began to return to the land without faith in the Messiah—and especially after the recognition of Israel’s statehood—the emphasis and theology changed. Eventually, among a large contingent of Zionists, the evangelistic purpose was abandoned for the purpose of simply getting the Jewish people back in the land. Evangelism is often not only neglected but forbidden. For them, the purpose of the church as it relates to Israel is only physical relocation and political restoration. Trying to convert them is unnecessary and foolish according to Hagee. Obviously, not all who call themselves Zionists would abandon the zeal to see Jewish people brought to Jesus. But most would give Israel a preferred nation status with God based on their interpretation of Old Testament Scripture.
In Defense of Israel is praised by some for the overall purpose of refuting anti-Semitism, exposing the error of replacement theology, and confronting the tragic evil of persecution of Jews by Christians. I have a few comments regarding this as it relates to our focus on the centrality of Christ. No one in his or her right mind is in favor of prejudice toward the Jews—or anyone else for that matter. We are all ashamed of the cowardice at best and complicity at worst that segments of the church displayed when Hitler was mobilizing against the Jews. Nothing can justify that. But guilt and shame over that does not warrant a biased view of Biblical revelation regarding the singular purpose of God revealed in Jesus and his Church. I grieve sometimes when we continually focus on the horrors of the holocaust, while ignoring the past and current persecution of thousands of Christ-followers in many nations including Israel. What about those who are now suffering because they have received the Messiah? Shouldn’t they get some measure of concern from Christians who mourn the unjust treatment of Jews? The new nation (of believers) created by the Christ-event is the focus of God’s purpose. I realize to speak like this is to run the risk of being called anti-Semitic. I stand before God alone in regards to my conscience towards any ethnic group including Jews. I long for their inclusion into the people of God. I can’t help agreeing with Peter’s admonition to Jewish people in his message at Solomon’s Portico:
“And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.” (Acts 3:23)
Those who reject God’s Messiah are cut off from his people. They can be included when they confess that the suffering Messiah is theirs and join the believing non-Jews in making up the family tree (Romans 11: 13-36). Until then, they are not blessed in Abraham’s blessing. They have chosen a course of unbelief that has brought blindness upon them. The veil will be lifted when they turn to the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:14-18).
For us to wait until some future date (when their time comes) to evangelize them, is to condemn many to a Christ-less eternity. That is true anti-Semitism. It seems that today it is easy to accuse someone of being anti-Semitic when they are just anti-Zionist. They might be more genuinely concerned for the whole welfare of Jewish people than those who are so passionate about supporting an ethnic entity that has no place for the Christ who died to truly restore them.
(Note: Zionism is defined by A Definition of Zionism, Jewish Virtual Library as: “the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.” Christian Zionism is defined by Colin Chapman in Whose Promised Land, Israel or Palestine as: “Christian support for Zionism.” Actually, Zionism has many facets and sadly too often supports Israel regardless of its attitude toward God or justice among nations.)
A friend told me recently about his experience at a Jr. High School basketball game. He was complimenting one of the players for playing such good defense. “I was so afraid of guarding him, Mr. ------. You know he is Jewish. I was afraid of touching him. He is one of God’s chosen.” Now we know that is an immature young man trying to assimilate what he has probably heard in church. But what are we saying to our congregations that could even be close to that kind of misunderstanding?
I am grieved to hear respected men and women threaten with the admonition that those who bless Israel (and they are referring to national Israel) are blessed and those who don’t are cursed. This seems to me to be misusing Scripture to support an already determined agenda. God said those words to Abraham, and if it had further ramifications it was fulfilled in Abraham’s true Seed, Jesus. Jesus is the issue of judgment. He took curses so we could have blessings. Those who trust him get all the blessings he deserves. Those who reject him get the curses sin deserves. To place any nation in that place is reckless, especially a nation of people living outside God’s covenant.
Blessings and curses are part of ancient covenants. When one party failed to live up to their part of the stipulations, the witnesses were accountable to bring the agreed upon curses on them. In Israel’s case, God had called heaven and earth to witness the covenant he made with them. So when they broke covenant, the earth, as well as the heavens, punished them. But we live in the days of the completed covenant. Jesus is our new covenant. He took the curses and gives the blessings. Again, it is Jesus who is the center of God’s purpose; not national Israel. It is manipulative to suggest that the decline of the British Empire or events such as hurricanes in the U.S. are the result of political decisions regarding national Israel. It is time we started being witnesses of the new covenant, knowing the old has passed away (Hebrews 8:13).
Dual Covenant Theology is wrong. Not all who hold to a dispensational approach to Scripture are guilty of this error. But it is time to look as honestly as we can at our hermeneutics. If the presuppositions we hold as we approach Scripture lead us to diminish—even a little—the centrality of Christ, we need to re-evaluate. I can’t find those Old Testament prophecies that “clearly refer to Jews according to the flesh” apart from Christ. Just because the fulfillment of a promise looks different than we expected doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened yet. It could mean that history is not self-evident and that to get the final and intended meaning we must rely on the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament is replete with instances of reinterpretation based on the place of Christ in the Old Testament prophecies. They needed their eyes opened to really understand the Scriptures and so do we.
There are, however, clear texts referring to the Christ-centered identity of the nation of God’s favor. He makes it clear that unbelieving Jews have no part of that company. Luke 3:8-9; John 5:39-40; John 8:39-44; John 14:6-7; Galatians 4:21-28 (In this passage, we have a New Testament authority interpreting the story of Abraham’s descendents. He equates the son of Hagar with fleshly Israel. The sons of Sarah are those who have expressed faith in Jesus as the Messiah—in this case Gentiles). “Chosen-ness” in the New Testament is not associated with natural Israel, but with people who have faith in Christ as Messiah (Ephesians 1:11, Colossians 3:12, 1 Peter 2:9-10). I think we can see clearly that God reinterpreted “Chosen-ness” to Peter in the encounter with the vision of unclean animals:
…and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common. (Acts 10:11-15)
Replacement theology seems to be a catch-all category for all beliefs that aren’t in favor of granting special status to Israel just because it is Israel. Actually, I believe the focus of Scripture is the fulfillment of Israel’s purpose in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. He alone completed what Israel was assigned to do. In his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, he opened the way to the Father for all children of Abraham. (Those who believe the same way Abraham did.) Israel was identified in him. True Israel was revealed. The ones who recognized him revealed they were of Abraham’s faith. So we could call this view “Reinterpreted Theology” or “Fulfilled Theology” or “Identification Theology”. To call it Replacement Theology is to presuppose that Israel is the primary purpose of God in history and that something (the church) has replaced that original purpose. Of course, that is the teaching of dispensational premillennialism. The church is simply a parenthesis in the overall plan. When the church is taken out then Israel replaces the church as God’s program. Oh, maybe that is the real replacement theology! It seems to me that as long as Israel, as an identifiable ethnic or political entity, is given equal or even partial spotlight with Jesus, the door is open for all kinds of misinterpretations. Israel doesn’t need to be replaced. It can’t be. It has been the instrument of bringing to earth the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham. Now her only hope is the same as all other people: trust the already crucified, resurrected, and ascended Messiah. Come to him humbly as the Gentiles had to do. They have no covenant, no rights, and no heritage. They must trust a Jewish Messiah. Now Jews must come to a crucified Lord. Their ancestors can’t help. Their past is of no value in recommending them to God. They must admit their own kind rejected the author of Life. Humility for all is the way of the cross. Ethnicity does not affect the favor of God either negatively or positively. There is no “favored nation” status with God except his nation of believers. He has created a nation that represents his present covenant in the world. It is the church.
“Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” (Ephesians 3:20-21)
It seems that the purposes of God are centered in Jesus Christ and his church throughout all generations.
Dan Juster, in a recent newsletter, has accused non-Zionists of reinterpreting Scripture. He contends that the reason the New Testament doesn’t mention the restoration of national Israel to the land is that it was already a foregone conclusion and obvious to all the original readers of New Testament Scripture. He would have us accept the Old Testament’s true but partial revelation of God’s word (Hebrews 1:1-5) as the template of interpretation. According to Dan, the New Testament is primarily about showing people how to live in light of the life and teachings of Jesus and the events surrounding him. All the previous paradigms are left in place. With all due respect to Dan, I think Jesus was seriously involved in “reinterpreting” for his generation the original intent of prophetic promises as well as Old Testament types and shadows that needed his interpretation if they were to ever be understood. He reinterpreted the temple as his body and later the corporate body of Christ. He reinterpreted the Law as a God-type love. He reinterpreted truth as a living person. He said the prophets were speaking of him. The partial is always interpreted by the full. Old Testament expectations of “the day of the Lord”, “the kingdom of God”, “the new creation”, “the judgment”, etc were all reinterpreted by the surprising revelation of Jesus, the suffering servant-Lord of Israel and ultimate blessing of the world.
Let me reference Rick Joyner’s newsletter once more: “I personally feel that there is one basic ‘gate of hell’ or entry point, for the doctrines of demons to gain entry into the church and that is letting anything eclipse the centrality of Christ in our devotion.” I totally agree and would ask for the centrality of Jesus in our approach to interpreting Scripture. If he is not the center of history, nor the center of God’s purposes on earth, thus the center of Biblical revelation, then how can he be central to our devotion?
Let us pray that the controversy over the Dual Covenant Theology will lead us to a better understanding of the gospel and its ramifications. Let us be courageous in confronting error with truth. Let us be compassionate as we relate to each other in forbearing love.
Dudley Hall
