先是猶太人：一种改革宗视角[1]
作者：理查德伯瑞特博士（Richard L. Pratt, Jr.）
第三千禧年神学资源中心主席前改革宗神学院旧约教授
我很高興看到有這麼多福音派團體的代表來參加這次對猶太人的福音事工大會，就是那些尚未承認耶穌為彌賽亞的猶太人。看到這個重要議題受到如此廣泛而跨宗派的關注，我們都該備受鼓舞。這個大會的發起人把我所屬教會的宗派，改革宗傳統，納入討論範圍，也是讓我感到振奮。我深信加爾文主義的傳統在這方面有很多值得學習的東西，也許可以給像這樣的跨宗派論壇提供一些貢獻。[2]
在這篇論文裡，我們要探討四個主要的加爾文教義，因为這些教義對非基督徒猶太人的福音事工具有相當影響；而有幾個目標塑造了我們對這些教義的處理方式。首先，我們將只著重於改革宗相當一致性的傳統教義，而不是我個人的一些觀點。
其次，為確保此處的觀點反映出一定程度的共識，我們要借助於一些信仰告白，特別是威斯敏斯特信仰表白[3]，而非引用聖經的直接評釋。第三，我們要留意這每一個教義针對不跟隨耶穌為其彌賽亞的猶太人福音事工的一些實際意義。改革宗傳統裡至少有四個神學重點值得注意。首先，我們要回顧恩典之約的教義。其次，我們要探討加爾文主義對上帝子民的觀點。第三，我們要思考律法與福音的關係。第四，改革宗的末世論引發出對一些重要議題的關注。[4][5]
恩典之約
“聖約”這個詞語與改革宗神學如此密切相關，以致於“聖約”和“改革”這兩個詞經常交互使用。在許多學術圈裡，“改革宗神學”就是“聖約神學”，而 “聖約神學”就是“改革宗神學”。這個密切關聯反映出一個事實，那就是改革宗系統
我們需要留意，改革宗聖約神學經歷過一些重大的歷史發展。 聖約並沒有主導早期的加爾文主義思想，而是因著十七世紀的改革宗經院學者而導致其顯著地位。然而自此之後，聖約在改革宗傳統幾乎每個層面都起了重要的塑造作用[6]。當代加爾文主義已經對古代近東文獻的分析作出重大調整，但聖約仍然是改革宗神學的核心組成特徵。[7][8]
改革宗聖約神學 重要的特點之一，就是《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》所概述的恩典之約的理念[9]。要理解這個教義，我們必須記住，高度经院式的威斯敏斯特大會並沒有精确地以和聖經里使用“聖約”的方式使用這個詞語。相反地，該詞語是作為一個神學構想，用來指明上帝向人類啟示祂自己的一個方式。在這個架構裡，上帝以兩個約啟示自己。威斯敏斯特大會將第一個圣約稱為“行為之約”[10]或“生活之約”[11]。在1953年的表述，美國長老教會的宣言裡已經把非基督徒猶太人的福音事工納入考慮（參見后面的附錄）。
聖約描述了上帝和我們的始祖在伊甸園驗證期的關係。大會將上帝與人類之間的第二個圣約確定為“恩典之約”。 這圣約是與基督一起立的，從創世記3章15節到基督第二次降臨，它主導著上帝與人之間的關係。有時，這樣的傳統詞彙會引發困惑，因為許多福音派團體將“工作之約”與摩西相關聯，而將“恩典之約”與新約聖經關聯起來。相比之下，改革宗的傳統將“工作之約”限於墮落前的時期，而將包含舊約和新約的整個救贖歷史，都歸於“恩典之約”。
儘管恩典之約的歷史幅度，但改革宗傳統始終有認定舊約時代與新約時代之間的差異。但是，它也堅持認為，兩個約基本上是融為一體的，只是在執行運作上有所不同。正如威斯敏斯特大會所說的是，同一個恩典之約“在律法時代和福音時代各有不同的施行方式”[12]，但“不存有……本質上不同的……兩個恩典之約，而是同一個，卻有不同的施行運作。”[13][14]
可以確定的是，這個神學觀點會引出許多問題。一個聖約的“本質”和“施行”之間到底有何區別？“本質”和“施行”不是相互關聯的嗎？ 改革宗神學家繼續在探索這些有趣的問題，但我們必須把它們放在一邊，以便把討論的重點導致另一個方向。
也許恩典之約 重要的含義是，一直以來只有一個救贖之道。舊約時代的救贖方式與現今基督徒所領受的基本相同。正如威斯敏斯特信仰告白說的那樣，舊約信徒們仰望“所應許的彌賽亞，藉著他，他們的罪得著全然的赦免，並領受永恆的救贖”
12
。 舊約信仰禮儀背後的神聖目的是“在當時，藉著聖靈的運行，充分而有效地指引並建立選民對所應許之彌賽亞的信心。”[15]
無庸置疑，這個確認有許多層面都需要澄清。末世論的彌賽亞這概念在舊約裡是如何發展的？舊約信徒對基督有多少了解？ 儘管改革宗的神學家對這些問題可能有不同的答案，但所有人都同意，即使在舊約時代，基督也是救贖信仰的隱含或外顯對象。他的受死和復活一直是所有相信之人得救的基礎。
加爾文主義強調恩典之約裡單一的救贖之道，對非基督徒猶太人的福音事工至少有兩個重要含義。首先，我們可以講到強調回溯連續性的必要。從改革宗的角度來看，向非基督徒猶太人傳福音，應該強調舊約和新約信仰之間的連續性。
因為外邦人在教會裡長久以來的主導地位，基督信仰從其聖經根源已發生顯著變化。
誠然而言，其中一些變化是異教侵蝕的結果，而另一些變化則是正確的，因為教會一直試著要像保羅在哥林多前書9章22節所說的，“向什麼樣的人，我就作什麼樣的人”。然而，大多數宗派具有明顯的外邦風味，這常使得基督信仰似乎是一個外邦人的信仰；這樣的表象進而在教會和非基督徒猶太人之間豎立起巨大障礙。
基督徒介紹福音的方式可以改善或惡化這個令人遺憾的情況。基督徒宗派團體如果沒有联合舊新約的教義，例如恩典之約，往往會有讓緊張局勢惡化的危險。許多人若非被迫，通常是會以著重外邦人福址和需要的方式來傳達基督信仰。然而，改革宗神學因為強調兩約之間的連續性，能有助於解決其中一些緊張關係。
因為改革宗傳統熱衷於接受舊約在當代教會的權柄，所以它能用強調舊約所關注的方式來介紹基督，而許多猶太社區仍然非常看重舊約的這些教導。其次，我們也或許談到傳福音需要強調舊新約之間可能的連續性。聖約的合一性不只單純地將新約信徒追溯性地導向舊約圣经信仰，它也促使那些以舊約圣经啟示為導向的人前瞻性地去看耶穌和新約圣经。遺憾的是，有許多的基督教團體卻把我們的時代定位成一個明顯的“外邦人時代”，以致於一些福音派人士變得不重視去呼籲猶太人要相信耶穌為彌賽亞。
有時，這些福音派人士近乎於把舊約以色列人的信仰和基督信仰視為不同的信仰，却以同樣合法的方式達成救贖的相同目標。根據傳統的加爾文主義，沒有什麼比這更離譜的了。 恩典之約的一貫性將基督信仰描繪成舊約裡堅定不移的焦點和目標。舊約的信仰結構總是預期耶穌的到來。正如威斯敏斯特大會所說的，它們“都預表基督的到來”[16]。 從這個意義上講，上帝設定舊約信仰，為了指向耶穌以及他和其使徒們所教導的信仰結構。因此，拒絕對拿撒勒人耶穌的明確委身，就是拒絕舊約信仰本身。改革宗恩典之約一貫性的概念，使得向非基督徒的猶太社群傳福音是絕對必要的，無論這些社群是否忠信於舊約圣经信仰。
上帝的子民
上帝子民的教義，是第二個對我們的主題有重大影響的加爾文主義觀點。該教義論及舊約猶太人與新約教會之間的關係。遺憾的是，許多福音派人士在這個問題上持著兩個常見的立場之一：1）分離神學，或2）替代神學。但是，正如我們將會看到的，改革宗傳統實際上是持著第三個立場。
首先，分離神學把以色列和新約教會視為兩個相對獨立的上帝子民。在近幾十年來，這種觀點因著司考福的時代論而廣為人知，並且在當代許多時代論的說法裡繼續有不同程度的存在。一般而言，分離神學從根本上將針對以色列人的神聖計劃與新約教會的計劃區分開來。
以色列民族經常被稱為“上帝在地上的子民”，因為他們被認為註定要承受迦南地，並在千禧年和之後經歷地上的救贖。新約教會的外邦人經常被描述為“上帝的屬靈或在天上的子民”，因為他們被認為註定要承受永恆的屬天基業。這些舊約和新約圣经的應許是持續並存，但在很大程度上各自獨立的計劃。
其次，替代神學認為以色列民在上帝眼中已經不再特別。幾個世紀以來，這個觀點主導著一些宗派。在這個觀點裡，上帝已經廢除以色列民的特殊圣約地位，而以基督教會取代以色列。有時，這個替換被認為是絕對的，以至於猶太人在上帝的計劃裡不再扮演任何特殊的角色。
可悲的是，根據我的經驗，許多改革宗傳統以外的基督徒把加爾文主義的立場描述為替代神學。我猜想這種誤解主要是源於許多改革宗神學家使用強烈的言論，反對時代主義的分離神學。然而，要緊的是必須明白，改革宗的立場其實不同於分離和替代神學。
把改革宗關於上帝子民的觀點描述為“一致性神學”是比較準確的。在這個觀點裡，新約教會與舊約以色列是一體的。上帝沒有廢除對以色列的應許，而是藉著新約裡猶太人和外邦人的救贖而得以擴展和實現。
改革宗神學家以許多方式呈現他們的一致性神學。例如，加爾文對保羅在羅馬書
11章26節的解釋是“所有以色列人都要得救”，這就表顯出一個強烈的一致性。在加爾文看來，“所有以色列民”不單是指相信的猶太人，也不單是指新約教會的信徒。相反地，“所有以色列民”是指舊約和新約時期信主的猶太人和外邦人的總數。正如加爾文自己所說的，當外邦人進來時，猶太人也要返回……從而完成上帝對整體以色列的救贖，那必須是來自雙方面的集合，而以這樣的方式，猶太人要獲得首位，如同是上帝家裡首生的。[17][18]
無論加爾文對這節經文的解釋是否正確，它為改革宗傳統的持續性立場奠定了基礎。
按著加爾文的觀點，改革宗神學家通常把以色列說成教會，而教會為以色列[19]。這種名詞的互換性顯示出改革宗神學所認為的，舊約以色列和新約教會之間存在著固有的一貫性。從改革宗的角度來看，信主的外邦人乃是因著相信亞伯拉罕的頭生長子而被收養到亞伯拉罕的家裡。外邦信徒成為以色列的一部分，因此，他們與兩約中的猶太信徒一起承繼給予亞伯拉罕的應許，在此，既沒有分離也沒有替代，而是兩者合而為一。
我們可以留意改革宗傳統裡教會論的幾個特別信念，以此來進一步解釋這個一致性神學。首先，我們應該注意到，改革宗的無形教會觀絕對沒有區分以色列民和教會。
威斯敏斯特信仰告白對無形教會的定義是這樣的：
大公或普世的教會，是無形的，它包括所有選民的數目，那些在過去，現在和將來蒙揀選的人，在元首基督下集合成一體。[20]
所有時代和邦國的選民構成一個無形的教會。在這方面，舊約時代信主的猶太人和新約時代信主的猶太人和外邦人之間絕對沒有區別。在無形的教會裡，所有選民都有平等的地位和全然的合一。
其次，改革宗神學還強調了舊約和新約裡上帝子民有形群體之間的一致性。威斯敏斯特大會將有形教會定義為：由全世界所有宣稱真信仰的人，以及他們的儿女組成的群體，是主耶穌基督的國度，上帝的家，在它之外，人不可能得到通常的救贖[21]。
即使在有形的群體層面，舊約以色列民和新約教會也不是兩個獨立的族群，彼此並存或對立。
第三，有形群體的一致性也清楚顯示於改革宗神學的教導方式上，即新約圣经有形的教會包含信徒和非信徒，如同舊約圣经的以色列民那樣。這個教會觀與許多團體的觀點不同，他們的教導是，新約教會只是由真信徒組成的。在改革宗傳統裡，耶利米書所應許的，在新約裡“每個人都能認識耶和華”(耶利米書31章34節)，要到基督返回時才能全然應驗。因此，目前有形教會的成員包括信徒和非信徒，就像舊約以色列民包括信徒和非信徒一樣。
第四，舊約和新約群體的一貫性呈現於加爾文主義的信念裡，即信徒的子女是有形教會的一部份[22]，正如威斯敏斯特大會所說，有形教會由那些“宣稱真信仰…… 和……他們的子女”的人所組成[23]。所有改革宗受洗的幼兒，和一些改革宗受洗者都認為，新約教會內的兒女享有與舊約中的以色列人的兒女一樣的地位；他們是恩典應許所預期的（儘管不能確保）的承繼者。這種生物動態是建立在新約教會是舊約以色列民的延續這個信念上。
第五，改革宗神學強調以色列與教會的整體一致，把舊約餘民神學應用於教會。這個連結以兩種方式呈現。一方面，上帝審判的威嚇立於新約教會之上，就像它立於舊約以色列之上一樣。加爾文主義並沒有區分舊約以色列在審判之下，而新約教會是在恩典之下。威斯敏斯特大會曾明確指出：“有些[教會]已經墮落，以致不再是基督的教會，而變成撒但的會堂。”[24] 正如舊約以色列人因公然的背叛而經歷上帝的審判那樣，新約的離道背叛者也會在個人和集體，時間和永恆裡承受上帝的憤怒。
另一方面，正如舊約所應許的那樣，即使在以色列 黑暗的時刻，也會有公義的餘民繼續存在，因此，改革宗傳統如此聲明“無論如何，地上總會有一個教會，按照上帝的旨意敬拜祂。”[25] 舊約餘民神學的這個應用，再次表明加爾文主義的信念，那就是兩約裡，上帝的子民是整體而合一的。
毫無疑問的，改革宗的一致性神學提出了一些需要進一步探討的問題。例如，就信徒的肉身後裔在幾代人之後，幾乎沒有或很少證據顯示其有得救之信，那麼他們位份到底如何，改革宗神學家對此沒達成多少共識。就這個方面，現今非基督徒猶太人在上帝子民中的地位，可能就類似於那些有古早基督徒祖先的非基督徒外邦人。
改革宗傳統裡，有一個則是非常明確的，那就是肉身的後裔不能決定得救與否。
然而，保羅在羅馬書 11章28節似非而是的聲明裡強烈顯示，有個特殊的地位是延伸到多代的人。在談到非基督徒猶太人時，他說：“就著福音說，他們為你們的緣故是仇敵；就著揀選說，他們為列祖的緣故是蒙愛的。” 這段經文斷言，猶太人是舊約信徒的遙遠肉身後裔，他們仍享有某種特殊地位。也許類似的地位也適用於有基督徒先祖的外邦人，但這個議題在改革宗傳統裡仍需更全面的探討。儘管存有一些不確定因素，但改革宗神學家無疑地肯定兩約裡上帝有形子民之間的連續性。
改革宗關於上帝子民一貫性的觀點，對猶太社群的福音事工至少有兩個重要的意義。
首先，外邦人必須帶著強烈的蒙恩受惠意識，向非基督徒猶太人傳福音。在基督教歷史裡，外邦基督徒向猶太人群體傳福音的時候，顯然很少意識到他們對以色列民該有的感恩。即使在反猶太主義尚未主導外邦基督徒的心態時，對以色列民失喪之人傳福音與對對失喪異教徒傳福音，也沒有明顯的不同。然而，如果改革宗的觀點是正確的，那麼外邦基督徒對以色列民是有許多虧欠，因為外邦基督徒奉行的是他們從猶太人那裡承繼的信仰。
在這方面，我們應該謹記保羅對羅馬外邦人說的話：“不可向舊枝子[非基督徒的猶太人]誇口；若是誇口，當知道不是你托著根，乃是根托著你”(羅馬書11章18 節）。加爾文主義的一貫性神學強調每個外邦信徒對以色列民積欠的感恩。雖然我們不能削減或許會冒犯到非基督徒猶太人的新約聖經教義，但因著受恩於他們，外邦基督徒宣道士們應該表示出對以色列民由衷的感謝。
其次，改革宗傳統也提醒我們，有形的基督教會沒有宣稱過在道德上高於以色列民。
在整個教會歷史裡，外邦基督徒經常蔑視猶太人為“圣約破壞者”，“仇視上帝的人”和“殺害基督的人”。在大多數情況下，這種對以色列民的論述，都是與基督教會具有更高的道德節操的信念相連結。然而，根據改革宗關於有形教會的教義，新約教會也包含很多不純淨的人事物。 諸如“聖約破壞者”，“殺基督者”和
“憎恨上帝的人”之類的詞可以像用之於以色列民那樣，也能很輕易地（如果不是更輕易地）適用於有形的教會。
在羅馬書11章18到21節，使徒保羅警告當時的外邦基督徒不要在上帝的審判之下，對不信的猶太人“傲慢行事”，因為離道叛教和上帝的審判對外邦有形的教會也是可能有的；審判可以臨到他們那些“非原來的枝子”，如同臨到舊約以色列民 “原來的枝子”那樣。正如歷史一再顯示的，保羅的警告已成為現實。以外邦人為主的教會屢次背離對聖約的忠誠，而遭受上帝對這些悖逆的審判，那是眾所知悉之事。為此之故，向非基督徒猶太人傳福音，需要帶著更深的謙卑，我們需要時刻願意承認基督徒教會的種種巨大失誤。
律法和福音改革宗傳統對於律法和福音還採納一個觀點，這個觀點應該呈現於對非基督徒猶太人的福音事工裡。在改革宗的信仰告白和要理問答，“律法”和“福音”這兩個詞通常把舊約與新約區分開來，但重要的是，這樣的區分並非絕對的[26]。就加爾文主義的觀點，基督的福音在摩西律法裡佔有舉足輕重的地位，而摩西律法在福音時代也具有核心和積極的作用。律法和福音不是對立的，而是在兩約裡上帝的憐憫之下，生活的兩個調和相稱層面。
在這方面，路德宗與改改革宗的傳統之間顯出重要的差異。簡而言之，與改革宗神學相比，路德宗對律法呈現很大程度的負面評價。眾所周知，路德對律法的教義和講道主要集中在“律法是人知罪的工具導致人相信基督的”。而律法用來約束罪，也很早就受到關注。然而，路德本人未曾正式確立律法作為信徒道德指南的第三個
用法，鑒於路德本人的信仰歷程，他的取向並不讓人訝異。直到《默蘭頓協和信條》
(1577-1580)，路德宗傳統才正式確認律法的第三個用途，即律法為基督信徒的道德指南[27]。但是，律法的第三個用途在路德宗神學並未占有很強的地位。路德對律法的負面評價，仍然是路德宗傳統在這方面的特點。[28]
但是，加爾文主義則採取了非常不同的近路。在加爾文對羅馬書第七章的評論裡，他認為，律法作為道德指南，其實是律法的主要用途。 這個立場使得加爾文做出更為積極的評估。加爾文在評論羅馬書7章10節時，這麼說，
誡命對我們指出一個在上帝公義裡的生活方式，……是為了讓我們因遵守耶和華的律法而獲得永生，除非我們的敗壞成為攔阻。 ……因此，我們必須區分律法的性質和我們自己的邪惡。由此可見，律法給我們造成致命的傷害是附帶的，就像不治之症因某個醫治藥方而更為加劇那樣。 ……這仍然沒有改變，因為它本身並不對我們有害，它之所以如此，是因為我們的敗壞激發並使我們承受它的咒詛。[29][30]
在加爾文看來，摩西的律法反映了上帝的道德本性，其設計初衷是向人類指示生命之道。律法增添罪惡，導致死亡，只是因為人類陷入罪惡。 因此，加爾文強調律法是上帝的恩賜[31]。即使對基督徒而言，它也是一種祝福，並引導他們懷著感恩，在上帝面前而活[32]。總而言之，加爾文對摩西律法作為基督徒指南的評價，比路德更為積極。數個世紀以來，這個更為積極的觀點，一直是改革宗神學的特點。
威斯敏斯特信仰告白用了整整一章的篇幅來論述“上帝的律法”這個題目。首先，威斯敏斯特大會宣布，上帝律法的道德結構實際上早於摩西。正如第十九章的第一段和第二段所聲明的那樣，“上帝把一個律法賜給亞當”[33]，而這律法也是“上帝在西乃山以十誡所頒佈的。”[34] 以此觀點，偷竊，破壞安息日，不孝敬父母等，在道德上是不可接受的。這些律法是在摩西時代編篡成文，但已經“約束了[亞當]和他所有的子孫”。[35]
除此之外，在加爾文主義的觀點裡，上帝藉著摩西的服事，在這個已有的道德律法上增加了兩個特點。一方面，用威斯敏斯特的話語，上帝把“禮儀律賜給尚未成年的教會”[36]，就是以色列民。而另一方面，上帝把以色列民當作“一個政治體，所以又賜給他們各種司法條例”[37]。毫無疑問，在道德律，禮儀律和司法法律之間作出嚴格的劃分是有問題的。
改革宗傳統內外的無數神學家都對這些類別的評估提出質疑。儘管如此，即使在這樣三重劃分的情況下，改革宗傳統也肯定摩西律法所有方面的道德相關性。正如威斯敏斯特大會所說的那樣，道德律“確實永遠約束世上一切的人”[38]。即使新約信徒無需執行舊約的禮儀，例如獻祭和聖殿敬拜，它們也不是無關緊要的，因為它們是“預表基督”和“ [持有]各種道德義務的教導”[39]。
此外，即使司法律，就其“一些普遍公平原則”的範圍，對於新約時代，仍然持有其相關性。[40]因此，改革宗神學家強調，跟隨基督的人會從關注上帝律法裡中受益匪淺，那也就不足為奇了。實際上，威斯敏斯特信仰告白對上帝律法的關注，絕大部份是在積極地宣告那些律法在新約時代對生活的實用性和價值。請看下面這個範例：
真信徒雖不在律法之下，稱義或定罪都不憑行為之約 ，但這律法對於他們，或別人都大有用處，因為律法作為一種生活的規範，可以使他們知道上帝的旨意，他們的義務，並且指示他們，約束他們照著去行 。……同樣的，律法也可以防止重生的人敗壞。[41]
正如這段文字所表明的，從改革宗的角度來看，即使在現今，上帝的律法對於信徒和非信仍然“大有效用”。
如果這個信條還不能明確說明這一點，那麼改革宗傳統對摩西律法的積極觀點，在各種加爾文主義的政治嘗試裡應該是顯而易見的。例如，加爾文的日內瓦，清教徒的英格蘭，和美國的清教徒殖民地的社會結構，都表明改革宗神學家多麼傾向於將摩西律法視為指引道德和政治生活的正面性資源。
即使在我們現今時日，也經常聽到加爾文主義者（通常被稱為“神治主義者”或
“重建主義者”）積極地建議當今的民事政府盡可能地多實施舊約司法律。當然，改革宗神學家對這些觀點的細節存有分歧，但是在整個歷史上，改革宗傳統傾向於強調律法的第三種用途。[42]
改革宗神學的這個重點，對非基督徒猶太人的福音事工有什麼影響？我至少想到一個重要的意義。以改革宗神學為指引的福音事工堅持認為，摩西律法至今仍然是上帝對其子民的律法。不同於許多的基督教傳統，改革宗神學並沒有讓基督信仰與摩西律法的引導相對立。有反律法主義傾向的基督教傳統通常會要求猶太人放棄他們的傳統，例如守安息日，每年的節期，和飲食規定。實際上，這些歸信基督的猶太人被告知，他們必須活得像外邦人那樣，以表明對猶太彌賽亞耶穌的忠誠。
令人欣慰的是，近年來，有些基督徒猶太會眾抵制這種普遍的反律法主義。這些教會贊同一些作法，是許多外邦基督徒認為是與新約聖經相悖的。然而，這些教會的成員認為，當他們接受耶穌為彌賽亞時，他們的猶太人身份就得以成全或滿足。他們認為沒有必要放棄所有以聖經為基礎或基於聖經的圣经後的傳統。正如人們所預期的，這些猶太基督徒群體的存在，在廣大基督教會裡引發更緊張的氣氛。他們的信念和措施，與典型的外邦教會的作法如此不同，以至於含蓄的說，很多外邦人認為這些教會是異類。有時，這些基督徒猶太教會以一種優越感來對待外邦的兄弟姐妹。看來我們似乎就要有嚴重分化第一世紀教會的種族緊張關係那樣，這種不和諧迫使我們要更加仔細地研磨，如何將摩西律法與基督裡的生活關連起來。
改革宗對舊約律法的積極看法，可以大大緩解這些分歧。改革宗神學認為所有的摩西律法對於基督徒的生活都是有價值的，並倡導以開放的態度對待那些希望保持其獨特猶太習俗的猶太基督徒。就像使徒行傳所指出的，使徒們在跟隨基督時，並沒有放棄他們所有的猶太傳統[43]，所以現今改革宗的传福音，不應該忽視當代猶太基督教會的許多作法。
當然，現今對於聖經和後聖經的猶太傳統該如何應用，一定會出現分歧；在這些問題上不大可能達成全然的共識。然而，改革宗強調律法是信徒的道德指南，至少能夠幫助我們澄清關鍵問題的所在。從改革宗神學具優勢的角度來看，猶太基督徒探索在現今生活中如何應用舊約律法，那是毫無問題的。事實上，外邦信徒也應該讚賞和推行這樣的探索。
改革宗的舊約律法觀也闡明猶太人皈依基督信仰的性質。一方面，成為猶太基督徒並不意味著減少對摩西律法的服從。相反地，它意味著聖靈賦予信徒新的力量，可以在基督的主權下滿足律法的要求。即使是那些有助於成聖過程的聖經後猶太傳統，原則上也可以接受。一言以蔽之，改革宗傳福音的人應該清楚明示，猶太人不必為了跟隨耶穌，就一定要變成外邦人。
同時，改革宗神學鼓勵基督徒猶太人要記住，必須按著耶穌基督的啟示，重新解釋和修改所有的傳統習俗。例如，出於健康或傳統原因，保持猶太飲食是可以接受的，但為了與外邦基督徒有所分別而這樣做，則與新約關於教會合一的教導相抵觸[44][45]。同樣地，慶祝逾越節可能實際上是非常有益的，但在慶典裡獻祭一隻羔羊，則是羞辱基督贖罪的充分性。雖然改革宗的傳統並沒有要求猶太人為了跟隨基督，必須放棄他們的猶太身份，但它的確堅持他們的猶太身份完全由基督來定義。此外，儘管原則上猶太人成為基督徒，並非就要活得像外邦人，但有時為了福音的緣故，他們必須願意順應外邦人。41 儘管如此，猶太和外邦基督徒都有責任，共同致力於順從上帝的律法。改革宗教會面對的問題不是摩西律法是否適用於基督徒的生活，而是如何適用。忽略摩西的律法，就是忽略耶穌本人的道德觀點，耶穌堅持認為“無論何人廢掉這誡命中 小的一條，又教訓人這樣作，他在天國要稱為 小的”（馬太福音5 章19節）。我們的任務是分辨在新約時代要如何遵守摩西律法。對於外邦人和猶太人來說，這些遵守方式是否應該相同？在何種程度上應允許文化和個人的差異？
無論如何，就改革宗的觀點，應該清楚的是，對非基督徒猶太人傳福音，絕對不能給人一個錯誤的印象，那就是對摩西的忠誠會妨礙對基督的愛。相反地，基督徒傳福音應該申明，全心全意地委身基督，就是體現於全心全意致力遵循摩西律法。
末世論
改革宗對末世論的觀點也為傳福音給非基督徒猶太人提供重要的指引。遺憾的是，許多基督徒並沒有把“改革宗”和“末世論”這兩個詞語想在一起。大多數福音派人士難以相信改革宗神學對末世論有很多可說的。這個誤解至少有兩個原因。首先，與許多當代福音派團體不同，改革宗神學家很少致力於勾勒出特定的末日景況，我們對所擬議的那些日期和事件的順序基本上仍然很有質疑。
第二，改革宗教會團體通常允許其成員和牧者們持有各種各樣的看法。在許多福音派團體所關注的問題上，改革宗信仰告白和要理問答並不認可什麼特定立場；它們只是確認基本的信念，例如基督的榮耀歸來，死人復活，審判和 後的新创造。
儘管有這不同的看法，然而持平而言，改革宗傳統大致上是分為无千禧年末世論和後千禧年末世論。有時，也會出現前千禧年末世論的改革宗神學家，但這個觀點並未廣傳。因此，我們會專注於那些認同无千禧年或後千禧年立場的改革宗神學家的末世盼望。
改革宗傳統至少以兩個方式肯定以色列民族在末世的一個重要角色。首先，加爾文主義者強烈申明，當贖回的以色列人擁有全地時，對以色列的土地應許也就得以實現。許多福音派認為，只有前千禧年的末世論才能肯定以色列土地應許的持久有效性。按照這個觀點，否認基督在千禧年之前的回歸，就是否認上帝對其地上應許的信實，而以屬靈的祝福來代替。但是，我們應該指出，無論是改革宗的无千禧年或是後千禧年末世論，都沒有表明對以色列先祖們的土地應許已經失效。
相反地，改革宗末世論是以宏觀方式來看以色列土地應許的實現。的確，无千禧年主義和後千禧年主義通常不怎麼重視以色列國的近期建立，他們也不相信隨著基督出現後而來的千年統治。他們認為，迦南地只是一個預嚐，這是上帝子民走向治理全地的第一步。[46] 改革宗神學把末世論的新天新地視為以色列得地為業之盼望的實現。在新造裡，贖回的猶太人和被嫁接的外邦人將擁有全地，其地理中心則是迦南和新耶路撒冷。
其次，改革宗神學家非常認真看待羅馬書11章28到29節，保羅關於以色列民族似非而是之議論的含義：“就著福音說，他們為你們的緣故是仇敵；就著揀選說，他們為列祖的緣故是蒙愛的；因為上帝的恩賜和選召是沒有後悔”[47]。因此，改革宗神學一致持守著對以色列民得贖的盼望。
這個盼望有兩個基本形式。一方面，一些改革宗神學家認為，保羅只是向讀者擔保，猶太人並沒有完全與上帝的恩典隔絕。因此，教會裡總是會有基督徒猶太人[48]。另一方面，其他改革宗的神學家則是把羅馬書11章理解為是在教導，基督第二次來臨前，猶太人會大規模的歸信基督。
例如，對威斯敏斯特大要理問答第191題的回答指出，在主禱文的第二個請求： (“願你的國降臨”)裡，我們禱告的事項中也該加入“願猶太人得以蒙召”。這也是日內瓦聖經對於羅馬書11章26節的旁註所表達的觀點[49]。其他知名的神學家也採取這個立場。例如，查爾斯·霍治（Charles Hodge）寫道：“根據教會的共同信念，基督第二次降臨之前的第二個大事，就是猶太人的全民歸主。”[50][51]
This future hope for the widespread conversion of ethnic Israel has followed two basic patterns in Reformed theology. On the one hand, postmillennialists often 這個對以色列民廣泛歸信的未來盼望，是依循改革宗神學的兩個基本模式。一方面，後千禧年主義者經常把這個事件視為基督得勝教會的 後階段。福音傳遍全世界，而以色列民加入普世的救贖，迎接基督的再來。另一方面，无千禧年主義者傾向於把以色列民在末世的歸信基督理解為對外邦人背道的神聖回應，而非福音勝過世界的 頂點。[52]
儘管存有這些差異，但是改革宗傳統裡呈現一個關於以色列民未來歸信的共同要素：任何大規模的猶太人歸信都必須藉著傳福音來實現。這個立場強烈反對任何為以色列民提供另類救贖途徑的末世論。改革宗關乎以色列民未來的異象絕對否定這個普遍的觀念，那就是非基督徒猶太人看到基督榮耀歸來時，才會有機會相信基督。當基督在榮耀裡顯現時，對於未悔改的外邦人和猶太人來說，都為時已晚。聖潔勇士將在審判中打擊地上悖逆的邦國以及以色列的背道者。
改革宗末世論對非基督徒猶太人的福音事工有什麼意義？至少有兩個需要關注的事項。首先，改革宗的觀點使人注意，我們在基督福音裡，對非基督徒猶太人提供什麼樣的盼望？基督信仰指向以色列人所盼望的地上得勝與昌盛的實現。從以色列和猶大的亡國流離至今，以色列公義之人受逼迫和苦難，已經成為嚴重的神學和實際危機，數千年來他們的哀嘆上達天庭。對他們先祖的應許究竟安在？難道上帝已經忘卻祂所應許的，以色列會勝過那些迫害他們的國家？上帝何時才會讓公義和得勝臨到祂的子民？這些盼望都是具體，實際而屬世的，但它們通常好像與基督徒的福音毫不相干。然而從改革宗的觀點，這些屬地現世的盼望，也就是我們在耶穌裡所被應許要承繼的產業。
基督徒的福音是宣告，這些非常真實、具體而屬地的盼望，藉著基督的作為都得以實現。我們宣告在耶穌裡，我們那個國度已經奠基，藉著基督的死和復活，邪惡的堅固營壘已經被破除。而現今在聖靈接續的運作裡，我們展望這個末世異象的不同層面要在普世實現。此外，以色列忠信餘民的每個盼望，在基督再臨時，將會全然實現。
從改革宗的角度來看，我們向外邦人和猶太人宣告的基督徒福音，並沒有應許一個永恆屬于天上祝福的個人救恩。相反的，基督徒的福音宣告，基督再臨時，上帝子民以色列的在地上的盼望，將成為（新天）新地裡永無終止的歷史景況。那時，上帝子民的仇敵要被毀滅，整个大地會被更新，上帝子民將承受地土。基督徒福音的這個焦點通常從當代的福音傳講裡失落，然而這個重點需要以 明晰強烈的措辭加以重申，特別是對非基督徒的猶太人福音事工。[53]
改革宗末世論的第二個意義是，改革宗傳統堅持認為，像外邦人一樣，猶太人只有現在接受基督的福音，才能經歷上帝國度未來的榮耀。因此，我們有迫切的使命感，要把福音傳給猶太社區。我們應該為那些與他們的彌賽亞有分隔的猶太人景況而心懷憂傷；而我們對那些領受上帝不能反悔之呼召的人所懷的關愛和尊敬，應該激動我們的心，將基督的好信息傳報他們，使得他們得救而免受將來的審判。
此外，無論我們是否相信猶太人會大規模地歸信基督，專注於向猶太社區傳福音，是我們的末世責任。福音派組織經常關注耶穌所說的：“這天國的福音要傳遍天下，對萬民作見證，然後末期才來到”（馬太福音24:14）。因此，他們勤勉工作，將福音傳給每個可確認的外邦群體。當然，我們應該讚賞這些努力；但是，這種對外邦人的關注全然取代對以色列民的福音事工時，我們就太偏離了。只要我們的末世論引領我們期盼，我們的世代要包含著猶人的歸信基督，我們就有責任不只向外邦人，也要向以色列民族傳福音。
結論
我在本文開頭提出，改革宗傳統在塑造對非基督徒猶太人的福音事工方面有很多可供學習和貢獻之處。本文呼籲改革宗教會重新思考其對這項任務的委身。我們的傳統已經以服事外邦人為導向，以致我們通常忽略去尋找失喪的以色列民族。現在該是我們重申並運作我們對這事工的委身，以貫徹改革宗神學的意義和影響。
同時，改革宗神學似乎也有一些觀點，能夠幫助其他宗派傳統去重新鑒定評估。新舊約在恩典之約的一貫性，上帝的一統子民，律法與福音的融合協調，以及以色列未來的末世異象，這些都是能促進教會不同宗派戮力以赴的展望。無論如何，每個基督教傳統都應該自我深入探尋，並與其他神學觀點有所互動，找出每個合法有效的方式，把基督的福音帶給那些尚未尋見其彌賽亞的猶太人。
附錄美國長老教會第20屆大會，猶太族福音事工序文[54]
鑒於彌賽亞耶穌的命令：人要奉他的名傳悔改、赦罪的道，從耶路撒冷起直傳到萬邦（路加福音 24:47）。
然而有一些聲稱基督之名的人卻有計劃的運作，不認為猶太人需要來就基督方能得救。
這些人散佈著錯繆的盼望和安全感，認為猶太人撇開相信猶太先知們預告的上帝新約應許，還能承受永生(耶利米書31章31節，以賽亞書53章)。
因此，美國長老教會第20屆大會重申：“我們不以福音為恥；這福音本是上帝的大能，要救一切相信的，先是猶太人，後是外邦人”(羅馬書1章16節)。
重申：“除他以外，別無拯救；因為在天下人間，沒有賜下別的名，我們可以靠著
得救”(使徒行傳4章12節)以及“一切都因耶穌的名無不屈膝”(腓立比書2章
10節)。
重申：如新約所教導的，任何一個人（無論猶太人或外邦人）沒接受耶穌，以色列的彌賽亞，為救主和主，將永遠滅亡；因為被任命為猶太人使徒的彼得(加拉太書 2章7節)，如此勸籲以色列人：“你們當救自己脫離這彎曲的世代”(使徒行傳2 章1到41節)。
重新委身：為所有族群，猶太人和外邦人，祈求，使得他們在信心裡轉向以色列的上帝和祂的聖潔彌賽亞耶穌，如威斯敏斯特大要理問答所說的，：“我們要祈求，福音傳遍天下，猶太人蒙召，外邦人的數目添滿。”(威斯敏斯特大要理問答191
題)
重新委身：致力於向所有人（猶太人和外邦人）宣講基督的福音，並判定不讓猶太人得著福音，為 惡劣形式的反猶太主義。
譴責某些人虛假錯繆的教導，認為由於亞伯拉罕之約，在基督的福音之外，現今的猶太人仍然可能得到救恩；而這個異端必然涉及否認藉著我們的彌賽亞所完成的贖罪(希伯來書9章15節)。
因此，我們根據聖經，威斯敏斯特信仰告白，與要理問答，再次確認，身為彌賽亞的子民，我們有責任將福音傳給世上所有的人，包括猶太人。我們召喚耶穌為之而來的猶太人，與我們一起相信祂就是他們的彌賽亞，順服“宇宙之王”耶穌為其君王，也要向所有的人傳講祂的福音，因為那位耶穌有一天會回來審判世界(使徒行傳1章11節)。
[1] To The Jew First: A Reformed Perspective， Volume 1, Number 31 (9/27/1999, to 10/3/1999) Biblical Perspective Magazine 。
https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/ric_pratt%5EPT.Pratt.Jew.First.html/at/To%20The%20Jew%20First:%2 0A%20Reformed%20Perspective
[2] Much thanks belongs to Ra McLaughlin, webmaster and editor for Third Millennium Ministries, for his editorial work with this manuscript.
[3] The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) with some modifications is the official doctrinal standard of many Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. It therefore adequately represents some of the central features of the Reformed theological system.
[4] It should be noted that these and related topics appear in a number of important writings by Reformed theologians.
See for instance: Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
[5] . Holwerda, David E. Jesus and Israel — One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. Berkouwer, G.C. The Church. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976. Berkouwer, G.C. Faith and Sanctification. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952. Berkouwer, G.C. The Return of Christ. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972. Murray, Iain H. The Puritan Hope. London: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1971. Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace. London: Tyndale
[6] For a summary of covenant in Reformed theology see: Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980, pp. 234‐267.
[7] Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980, pp.
[8] ‐227. Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963; The Structure of Biblical Authority. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1997; Kingdom Prologue. S. Hamilton: M.G. Kline, 1993.
[9] WCF 7.3‐7.6; 14.2; 17.2; 27.1; 28.1; Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) 30‐36,162; Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) 20,94. As we describe the covenant of grace, we should note that the viewpoint of the Westminster Assembly is a theological construct. It was not directly dependent on specific biblical passages or vocabulary of covenant. Instead, it summarized an assortment of biblical teachings on divine‐human relations, much like the doctrine of the Trinity brought together many affirmations about the godhead into one doctrine.
[10] WCF 7.2; 19.1; WLC 30
[11] WLC 20; WSC 12
[12] WCF 7.5
[13] WCF 7.6
[14] WCF 7.5
[15] WCF 7.5
[16] WCF 7.5
[17] Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
[18] , pp. 437.
[19] Clowney, Edmund P. The Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 42‐44. Hodge, Charles. Systematic
Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993, vol. 3, pp. 548‐552. 16 WCF 25.1
[20] WCF 25.1
[21] WCF 25.2
[22] Compare London Baptist Confession (1689) 26.2.
[23] WCF 25.2
[24] WCF 25.5
[25] WCF 25.5
[26] WCF 7.5; 20.1; 25.2
[27] Formula of Concord, Article 6.
[28] Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966, pp. 614‐615. Spitz,
Lewis W., and Wenzel Lohff, eds. Discord, Dialogue, and Concord. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977, pp. 93‐94.
[29] Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
[30] , p. 256.
[31] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.7.4; 2.7.7.
[32] The Heidelberg Catechism reflects Calvin’s perspective when it sets the Ten Commandments under the rubric of “Of
Gratitude” or “Of Thankfulness” (questions 92‐ 115).
[33] WCF 19.1
[34] WCF 19.2
[35] WCF 19.1. In this way, the Reformed perspective on Mosaic law is similar to rabbinical declarations of the eternality of Torah (see Pirqe Abot 1.2; 3.23).
[36] WCF 19.3
[37] WCF 19.4
[38] WCF 19.5
[39] WCF 19.3
[40] WCF 19.4
[41] WCF 19.6
[42] See Barker, William S., and W. Robert Godfrey, eds. Theonomy — A Reformed Critique. Grand Rapids: Academie
Books, 1990.
[43] Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:21, 25, 42; 18:18; 21:20‐26; 22:17; 23:4‐5; 24:10‐18; 25:8.
[44] Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:21, 25, 42; 18:18; 21:20‐26; 22:17; 23:4‐5; 24:10‐18; 25:8.
[45] Cor 9:20‐22; Gal 2:11‐21
[46] Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993, pp. 298‐299. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, 2.11.2, pp. 451‐452.
[47] Holwerda, David E. Jesus and Israel — One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995, pp. 153‐154,168‐175.
[48] See Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979, pp.143‐147; Murray, Iain H. The Puritan Hope. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1971, pp. 48‐49, 61‐65.
[49] Murray, Iain H. The Puritan Hope. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1971, p. 41.
[50] Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993, vol. 3, p. 805. See similar sentiments in: Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Second Edition, vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1812, pp. 443‐444 and 454‐455; Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1984, vol. I, p.
[51] and vol. II pp. xiv‐xv and 76‐101; Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments. Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1948, Tenth Printing, p. 79; The Pauline Eschatology. Baker Book House, 1979, p. 88; Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co. 1980, p. 35; Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. vol. 1, Banner of Truth Trust, 1976, p. 607; Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary. vol.6, MacDonald Publishing Company, pp. 448‐453, as cited by CHAIM [http://www.chaim.org].
[52] Berkouwer, G.C. The Return of Christ. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972, 323‐358.
[53] Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.
[54] As cited by CHAIM [http://www.chaim.org/ga.htm]
To The Jew First: A Reformed Perspective
by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr.
Professor of Old Testament
Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL
I am delighted to see representatives from so many evangelical groups participating in this conference on gospel ministry to Jews who have not acknowledged Jesus as Messiah. We should all be encouraged at witnessing such widespread, interdenominational interest in this important topic. It is also encouraging to me that the organizers of this conference included my branch of the church, the Reformed tradition, within this discussion. I am convinced that the Calvinistic tradition has many things to learn in this area, and perhaps a few things to contribute to an inter-denominational forum like this one. 1
In this essay, we will look at four major Calvinistic doctrines which have implications for gospel ministry to non-Christian Jews. Several goals have shaped our treatment of these doctrines. First, we will focus only on longstanding doctrines on which the Reformed tradition has been relatively unified, rather than on my own personal views.
Second, to insure that the perspectives here reflect some breadth of agreement, we will draw upon confessional resources, especially the Westminster Confession of Faith, 2 rather than direct exegetical work with the Bible. Third, we will direct attention to some of the practical implications that each of these doctrines has for gospel ministry to Jews who do not follow Jesus as their Messiah.
At least four theological emphases within the Reformed tradition demand attention.
First, we will review the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace. Second, we will touch on Calvinistic perspectives on the people of God. Third, the relationship of law and gospel will come under consideration. Fourth, the Reformed doctrine of eschatology will draw attention to several important issues. 3
The Covenant of Grace
The term “covenant” is so closely associated with Reformed theology that the words “covenant” and “reformed” are often used interchangeably. In many circles, “Reformed theology” is “covenant theology”; “covenant theology” is “Reformed theology.” This close association reflects the fact that a central feature of Reformed systematics is the doctrine of covenant.
We should note that Reformed covenant theology has undergone significant historical developments. Covenant did not dominate early Calvinistic thinking, but rose to prominence through the Reformed scholastics of the seventeenth century. Since then, however, covenant has played a formative role in nearly every corner of the tradition. 4 In contemporary Calvinism significant adjustments have been made in the light of recent analyses of ancient Near Eastern texts, but covenant remains a central organizing feature of Reformed theology. 5
One of Reformed covenant theology’s most important features is the idea of the covenant of grace outlined in the Westminster Confession. 6 To understand this doctrine we must remember that the highly scholastic Westminster Assembly did not use the term “covenant” in precisely the same way that the Bible does. Rather, the term was used as a theological construct to designate the manner in which God reveals himself to humanity.
In this framework, God reveals himself in two covenants. The Westminster Assembly called the first covenant the “covenant of works” 7 or “covenant of life.” 8 This Press, 1954. Gospel ministry to non-Christian Jews has come under consideration in the declarations of Presbyterian churches in the United States in recent years. See Appendix.
Covenant describes the relationship between God and our first parents during their probation in Eden. The Assembly identified the second covenant between God and humanity as the “covenant of grace.” This covenant was made with Christ and governed divine-human relations from Genesis 3:15 to Christ’s second coming. At times, this traditional vocabulary leads to confusion because many evangelical groups associate the “covenant of works” with Moses, and the “covenant of grace” with the New Testament. By contrast, the Reformed tradition limits the “covenant of works” to the time before the fall, and assigns the entire history of redemption, including both the Old and New Testaments, to the “covenant of grace.”
Despite the historical breadth of the covenant of grace, the Reformed tradition has always acknowledged differences between the Old Testament and New Testament periods. Yet, it has also insisted that both Testaments are substantially unified and differ only administratively. As the Westminster Assembly put it, the one covenant of grace “was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel,” 9 but “there are not … two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” 10
To be sure, this theological perspective raises many questions. What precisely is the difference between the “substance” and “administration” of a covenant? Are not “substance” and “administration” reciprocally related? Reformed theologians continue to explore these interesting questions, but we must set them aside in order to focus our discussion in a different direction.
Perhaps the most important implication of the covenant of grace is that there has always been only one way of salvation. The way of salvation in the Old Testament era was essentially the same as it is for Christians today. As the Westminster Confession put it, Old Testament believers looked to “the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation.” 11 The divine purposes behind the religious arrangements of the Old Testament were “for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah.” 12
No doubt, many aspects of this affirmation need to be clarified. How did the concept of the eschatological Messiah develop in the Old Testament? How much did Old Testament believers understand about Christ? While Reformed theologians may answer these questions differently, all agree that Christ was the implicit or explicit object of saving faith even in the Old Testament. His death and resurrection have always been the basis of salvation for all who believe.
The Calvinistic emphasis on one way of salvation in the one covenant of grace has at least two significant implications for gospel ministry to non-Christian Jews. In the first place, we may speak of the need to stress retrospective continuity. Evangelism of non- Christian Jews from a Reformed perspective should stress the continuities between Old Testament and New Testament faith.
Because Gentiles have dominated in the church for so long, Christianity has transformed remarkably from its biblical roots. To be sure, some of these changes have resulted from encroachments of paganism, while others have rightly come about as the church has sought to “become all things to all people” as Paul put it in 1 Corinthians 9:22. Nevertheless, the distinctively Gentile flavor of most denominations often makes Christianity appear to be an entirely Gentile religion. This appearance, in turn, erects enormous barriers between the church and non-Christian Jews.
The manner in which Christians present the gospel can either ameliorate or exacerbate this unfortunate situation. Christian groups who have no doctrine that unifies the Testaments, like the covenant of grace, often run the risk of worsening the tension. Many feel free, if not compelled, to present Christianity in ways which focus on distinctively Gentile interests and needs. Reformed theology, however, can help resolve some of these tensions because it stresses the continuities between the Testaments.
Because the Reformed tradition enthusiastically embraces the Old Testament’s authority over the modern church, it can present Christ in ways which emphasize the Old Testament concerns that many Jewish communities still treasure so highly. In the second place, we may also speak of the need for evangelism to stress prospective continuities between the Testaments. The unity of the covenant does not simply draw New Testament believers retrospectively toward Old Testament faith. It also presses those oriented toward Old Testament revelation to look prospectively toward Jesus and the New Testament. Unfortunately, so many Christian groups have characterized our day as a distinctly “Gentile age” that a number of evangelicals have tended to minimize the call for Jews to place their faith in Jesus as the Messiah. At times, these evangelicals come close to treating Old Testament Israelite faith and Christianity as different but equally legitimate ways to reach the same goal of salvation. According to traditional Calvinism, nothing could be further from the truth. The unity of the covenant of grace portrays Christian faith as the unwavering focus and goal of the Old Testament. The faith structures of the Old Testament always anticipated Jesus. As the Westminster Assembly put it, they were “all foresignifying Christ to come.” 13 In this sense, God designed Old Testament faith to point to Jesus and the faith structures he and his apostles taught. To reject explicit commitment to Jesus of Nazareth, therefore, is to reject Old Testament faith itself. The Reformed concept of the unity of the covenant of grace makes evangelism of non-Christian Jewish communities an absolute necessity, whether those communities are faithful or unfaithful to Old Testament religion.
The People of God
A second Calvinistic outlook which has significant implications for our topic is the doctrine of the people of God. This doctrine addresses the relationship between Old Testament Jews and the New Testament church. Unfortunately, many evangelicals hold one of two common positions on this issue: 1) separation theology; or 2) replacement theology. As we will see, however, the Reformed tradition actually holds a third position.
In the first place, separation theology views Israel and the New Testament church as two relatively separate peoples of God. This viewpoint has become popular in recent decades through Scofieldian Dispensationalism, and continues to varying degrees in many contemporary expressions of Dispensationalism. In general, separation theology radically distinguishes the divine program for ethnic Israel from that of the New Testament church.
Ethnic Israel often receives the designation of “the earthly people of God” because they are thought to be destined to receive the land of Canaan and to experience an earthly salvation in the millennium and beyond. The Gentiles of the New Testament church are frequently described as “the spiritual or heavenly people of God” because they are thought to be destined to receive the inheritance of an eternal heavenly existence. These Old Testament and New Testament promises continue alongside each other as largely independent programs.
In the second place, replacement theology holds that ethnic Israel has ceased to be special in the eyes of God. This outlook has dominated a number of denominations throughout the centuries. In this view, God has abrogated the special covenant status of ethnic Israel and replaced Israel with the Christian church. At times, this replacement is thought to be so categorical that Jews no longer have any special role whatsoever in the plan of God.
Sadly, it has been my experience that many Christians outside the Reformed tradition characterize the Calvinistic position as replacement theology. I suspect that this misperception stems largely from the strong rhetoric many Reformed theologians employ against the separation theology of Dispensationalism. It is important, however, to understand that the Reformed position differs from both separation and replacement theologies.
It is more accurate to describe the Reformed view on the people of God as “unity theology.” In this outlook, the New Testament church is one with Israel of the Old Testament. The promises to Israel are not abrogated, but extended and fulfilled through the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament community.
Reformed theologians have displayed their unity theology in a number of ways. For instance, Calvin’s interpretation of Paul’s statement in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel will be saved” points to this strong sense of unity. In Calvin’s view, “all Israel” refers neither to believing Jews alone, nor to believers within the New Testament church alone. Instead, “all Israel” denotes the combined number of believing Jews and Gentiles from both the Old and New Testaments periods. As Calvin himself put it, When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return … and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both, and yet in such a way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it were the first born in God’s family. 14
Whether or not Calvin’s interpretation of this verse was correct, it set the course for a continuing posture of the Reformed tradition. In line with Calvin’s view, it is common for Reformed theologians to speak of Israel as the church and the church as Israel. 15 This interchangeability of terms points to the organic unity which Reformed theology understands to exist between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church. From the Reformed perspective, believing Gentiles have always been adopted into the family of Abraham by faith in Abraham’s great Son. Gentile believers are made a part of Israel, and thus they inherit the promises given to Abraham alongside Jewish believers from both Testaments. There is neither separation nor replacement. Instead, the two have become one.
We may further explain this unity theology by drawing attention to several beliefs that characterize the doctrine of the church in the Reformed tradition. In the first place, we should note that the Reformed outlook on the invisible church makes absolutely no distinction between ethnic Israel and the church. The Westminster Confession defines the invisible church in this manner:
The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof. 16
The full number of the elect from all ages and nations comprise the one invisible church. In this respect, absolutely no distinction exists between the believing Jews of the Old Testament era and the Christian Jews and Gentiles of the New Testament era. All the elect have equal status and utter unity in the invisible church.
In the second place, Reformed theology also stresses the unity between the visible communities of God’s people in the Old and New Testaments. The Westminster Assembly defined the visible church as that community which consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 17
Even on the level of visible communities, Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church are not two separate peoples, existing alongside or in opposition to each other.
Third, the unity of the visible communities is also evident in the ways Reformed theology has taught that the New Testament visible church includes both believers and unbelievers, just as Old Testament Israel did. This outlook on the church differs from that of many groups who teach that the New Testament church consists only of true believers.
In the Reformed tradition, Jeremiah’s promise that “everyone will know the Lord” (Jer 31:34) in the New Covenant is not completed until the return of Christ. For this reason, at the present time membership in the visible church consists of believers and unbelievers, just as citizenship in Old Testament Israel consisted of believers and unbelievers.
Fourth, the unity of the visible Old and New Testament communities appears in the Calvinistic belief that the children of believers are part of the visible New Testament church. 18 As the Westminster Assembly put it, the visible church consists of those who “profess the true religion … and … their children.” 19 All Reformed paedo-baptists and a number of Reformed baptists believe that children within the New Testament church hold a status much like that of Israelite children in the Old Testament. They are the expected (though not guaranteed) heirs of the promises of grace. This biological dynamic rests on the conviction that the New Testament church is a continuation of Old Testament Israel.
Fifth, Reformed theology has emphasized the unity of Israel and the church by applying Old Testament remnant theology to the church. This connection appears in two ways. On the one hand, the threat of divine judgment stands over the New Testament church just as it stood over Old Testament Israel. Calvinism does not distinguish Old Testament Israel as under judgment and the New Testament church as under grace. The Westminster Assembly plainly stated, “Some [churches] have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.” 20 As Old Testament Israel experienced divine judgment for flagrant apostasy, New Testament apostates will suffer divine wrath individually and corporately, temporally and eternally.
On the other hand, just as the Old Testament promised that a righteous remnant would continue even through Israel’s darkest hours, so the Reformed tradition has affirmed that “nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.” 21 This application of Old Testament remnant theology points again to the Calvinistic belief in the unity of the people of God in both Testaments.
To be sure, Reformed unity theology raises questions that need to be explored further. For example, Reformed theologians still have not reached much consensus on the status of physical descendants of believers after multiple generations have passed with little or no evidence of saving faith. In this regard, non-Christian Jews today may have a status among God’s people similar to non-Christian Gentiles who have distant Christian ancestors. One thing is clear to all in the Reformed tradition. Physical descent does not determine salvation. Yet, Paul’s remarkably paradoxical statement in Romans 11:28 strongly suggests that a special status extends through multiple generations. Speaking of non-Christian Jews he says, “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your [the Gentiles’] account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” This passage asserts that a special status of some sort continues for Jews who are distant physical descendants of the Old Testament believers. Perhaps a similar status applies to Gentiles with Christian ancestry as well, but this issue remains to be explored more fully in the Reformed tradition. Despite a number of lingering uncertainties, Reformed theologians unquestionably affirm continuity between the visible people of God in both Testaments.
The Reformed perspective on the unity of God’s people has at least two important implications for gospel ministry to Jewish communities. First, Gentiles must carry out evangelism of non-Christian Jews with a strong sense of indebtedness. Throughout the history of Christianity, Gentile Christians have evangelized Jewish communities with apparently little awareness of the gratitude they owe to ethnic Israel. Even when anti- Semitism has not dominated Gentile Christian attitudes, outreach to the lost in ethnic Israel has not differed noticeably from outreach to lost pagans. Yet, if the Reformed perspective is right, then Gentile Christians owe a tremendous debt to ethnic Israel because Gentile Christians practice a faith which they inherited from Jews. In this regard, we should be mindful of Paul’s words to the Gentiles in Rome: “Do not boast over those branches [non- Christian Jews]. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you” (Romans 11:18). Calvinistic unity theology stresses the gratitude that every Gentile believer owes to ethnic Israel. Although we must not diminish the teachings of the New Testament that may offend non-Christian Jews, the practices of Gentile Christian evangelists should demonstrate the utmost appreciation for the ethnic Israel to whom they owe so much.
Second, the Reformed tradition also reminds us that the visible Christian church has no claim to moral superiority over ethnic Israel. Throughout its history, Gentile Christians have frequently disdained Jews as “covenant breakers,” “God haters” and “Christ killers.” Most of the time, this treatment of ethnic Israel has been coupled with the belief that the Christian church is of a higher moral character. According to the Reformed doctrine of the visible church, however, the New Testament church also contains much impurity. Such terms as “covenant breakers,” “Christ killers” and “God haters” may be applied as readily (if not more readily) to the visible Church as to ethnic Israel. In Romans 11:18-21 the apostle Paul warned Gentile Christians of his day not to “act arrogantly” toward unbelieving Jews under divine judgment because apostasy and divine judgment were possibilities for the Gentile visible church as well. Judgment can come upon them as “unnatural branches” as it came upon the “natural branches” of Old Testament Israel. As history has demonstrated repeatedly, Paul’s warning has become reality. It is a matter of record that the predominantly Gentile church has repeatedly turned from covenant fidelity and has suffered the judgment of God for these apostasies. For this reason, evangelism of non-Christian Jews must be carried out with a high degree of humility. We must always be ready to admit the enormous failures of the Christian church.
Law and Gospel
The Reformed tradition has also espoused an outlook on law and gospel that should inform gospel ministry to Jews without Christ. In Reformed confessions and catechisms, the terms “law” and “gospel” commonly distinguish the Old Testament from the New Testament, but it is important to see that this distinction is by no means absolute. 22 In the Calvinistic perspective, the gospel of Christ held an essential a place in the law of Moses, and Mosaic law plays a central and positive role in the age of the gospel. law and gospel are not in opposition, but are two harmonious dimensions of life under the mercy of God in both Testaments.
In this respect, important differences arise between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. Put simply, in contrast with Reformed theology the Lutheran Church has exhibited a largely negative assessment of the law. It is well known that Luther’s catechisms and sermons on the law primarily focused on the usus pedigogicus, the law as an instrument of sin leading to belief in Christ. The usus civilus, law as restraining sin, also received attention quite early. Luther himself, however, never formally established a place for the third use of the law as a moral guide for believers (usus normativus). Given Luther’s personal religious history, his orientation is not surprising. It was not until the Melancthonian Formula of Concord (1577-1580) that the Lutheran tradition formally affirmed the tertius usus legis (“third use of the law”), the law as moral guide for followers of Christ. 23 Still, the third use of the law has not held a strong position in Lutheran theology. Luther’s negative assessment of the law continues to characterize the Lutheran tradition in this regard. 24
Calvinism, however, has taken a very different approach. In Calvin’s commentary on the seventh chapter of Romans, he argued that the law as moral guide was actually the primary use of the law. This position led Calvin to a much more positive assessment. Commenting on Romans 7:10 Calvin said,
The commandment shows us a way of life in the righteousness of God, and … was given in order that we by keeping the law of the Lord might obtain eternal life, except our corruption stood in the way. … We must thus distinguish between the character of the law and our own wickedness. It hence follows, that it is incidental that the law inflicts on us a deadly wound, as when an incurable disease is more exasperated by a healing remedy. … this remains unaltered, that it is not in its own nature harmful to us, but it is so because our corruption provokes and draws upon us its curse. 25
From Calvin’s viewpoint, the law of Moses reflected the moral nature of God and was designed in the first place to show humanity the path to life. The law increased sin and led to death only because of humanity’s fall into sin. For this reason, Calvin stressed the law as a gracious gift from God. 26 It is a blessing even for Christian believers, and guides them in the way of grateful living before God. 27 In a word, Calvin was much more positive than Luther in his assessment of the Mosaic law as a guide for Christians. This more positive outlook has characterized Reformed theology throughout the centuries.
The Westminster Confession devoted an entire chapter to the subject: “Of the Law of God.” First, the Westminster Assembly declared that the moral structures of God’s law actually preceded Moses. As the first and second paragraphs of chapter nineteen declare, “God gave to Adam a law” 28 and this same law was “delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments.” 29 In this view, it was never morally acceptable to steal, break Sabbath, dishonor parents, etc. These laws were codified in the days of Moses, but had already “bound [Adam] and all his posterity.” 30
Beyond this, in the Calvinistic outlook God added two features to this pre-existing moral law through the ministry of Moses. On the one hand, in the language of Westminster, God ordained for Israel “as a church under age, ceremonial laws.” 31 On the other hand, he gave to Israel “as a body politic … sundry judicial laws.” 32 Undoubtedly, establishing sharp divisions between moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws is problematic.
Countless theologians within and without the Reformed tradition have challenged the value of these categories. Nevertheless, even operating with this threefold division, the Reformed tradition has affirmed the moral relevance of all aspects of Mosaic law. As the Westminster Assembly put it, the moral law is “binding in all times and circumstances what ever it says.” 33 Even though the ceremonies of the Old Testament, such as sacrifice and temple worship, are not to be performed by New Testament believers, they are not irrelevant because they “prefigur[ed] Christ” and “[held] forth divers instruction of moral duties.” 34
Moreover, even the judicial laws maintain relevance for the New Testament period as far as “the general equity thereof may require.” 35
It is not surprising, then that Reformed theologians have emphasized that followers of Christ benefit tremendously from attention to the law of God. In fact, the Westminster Confession devoted the overwhelming majority of its attention to the law of God to positive declarations of its usefulness and value for life in the New Testament period. Consider the following sample:
Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet it is of great use to them, as well as to others, in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly. … It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions. 36
As this passage makes clear, from a Reformed perspective the law of God is “of great use” to believers and unbelievers alike even in our day.
If this confessional statement does not make the point clear, the positive outlook on Mosaic law in the Reformed tradition should be evident in various Calvinistic political experiments. For example, the social structures of Calvin’s Geneva, the Puritans’ England, and the Puritan colonies of America demonstrate how prone Reformed theologians are to view the Mosaic law as a positive resource for guiding moral and political life.
Even in our own day, it is not uncommon to hear Calvinists, often known as “theonomists” or “reconstructionists,” enthusiastically recommending that contemporary civil governments enforce Old Testament judicial laws as much as possible. To be sure, Reformed theologians disagree about the details of these views, but the propensity of the Reformed tradition to emphasize the third use of the law appears throughout its history. 37
What are some implications of this focus of Reformed theology for gospel ministry to non-Christian Jews? At least one important implication comes to mind. Evangelism guided by Reformed theology insists that the law of Moses remains God’s law for his people today. Contrary to many Christian traditions, Reformed theology does not present Christianity as opposed to the guidance of Mosaic law. Christian traditions that tend toward antinomianism often require Jewish converts to abandon their traditions such as Sabbath-keeping, annual Feasts, and dietary observances. In effect, these converts are told that they must live as Gentiles to demonstrate loyalty to their Jewish Messiah Jesus.
Happily, in recent years a number of Christian Jewish congregations have resisted this widespread antinomianism. These churches endorse practices which many Gentile Christians are likely to consider contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. Yet, the members of these congregations see themselves as coming to completion or fulfillment as Jews when they receive Jesus as the Messiah. They see no need to abandon all biblical or biblically based post-biblical traditions.
As might be expected, the existence of these Jewish Christian communities has raised tensions in the broader Christian church. Their beliefs and practices are so different from those of typical Gentile churches that many Gentiles view these congregations as unusual to say the least. On occasion, these Christian Jewish churches react with an attitude of superiority over their Gentile brothers and sisters. It would appear that we are not far from the ethnic tensions that severely divided the first-century church. This disharmony compels us to examine more closely how we should relate the law of Moses to life in Christ.
The positive Reformed outlook on Old Testament law can greatly mollify these divisions. Reformed theology finds all Mosaic law valuable for Christian living, and promotes open attitudes toward Jewish Christians who wish to preserve their distinctively Jewish practices. Just as the book of Acts indicates that the apostles did not forsake all of their Jewish traditions as they followed Christ, 38 so Reformed evangelism today should not discount many of the practices of contemporary Jewish Christian congregations.
To be sure, disagreements will arise over how biblical and post-biblical Jewish traditions should be applied today. It is unlikely that full agreement will ever be reached on these matters. Yet, the Reformed emphasis on the law as a moral guide for believers should at least help us clarify where the crucial issues lie. From the vantage point of Reformed theology, there is no problem for Jewish Christians to explore the applications of Old Testament laws to life today. In fact, this exploration should be applauded and pursued by Gentiles as well.
The Reformed outlook on Old Testament law also clarifies the nature of Jewish conversion to Christianity. On the one hand, to be a Jewish Christian does not mean lessening one’s pursuit of obedience to the law of Moses. On the contrary, it implies a new empowerment from the Holy Spirit to fulfill the requirements of the law under the Lordship of Christ. Even those post-biblical Jewish traditions which aid in the process of sanctification are acceptable in principle. In a word, Reformed evangelists should be clear that Jews do not have to become Gentiles in order to follow Jesus.
At the same time, Reformed theology encourages Christian Jews to remember that all traditional practices must be reinterpreted and modified in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ. For instance, it may be acceptable to maintain a Kosher diet for reasons of health or tradition, but to do so in order to separate oneself from Gentile Christians contradicts New Testament teaching on the unity of the church. 39 Similarly, celebrating the Passover may in fact be quite beneficial, but to sacrifice a lamb as part of that celebration insults the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. While the Reformed tradition does not ask Jews to forgo their Jewishness in order to follow Christ, it does insist that their Jewishness be completely defined by Christ. Moreover, while in principle Jews need not live like Gentiles in order to be Christian, they must at times be willing to accommodate themselves to Gentiles for the sake of the gospel. 40
Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon Jewish and Gentile Christians alike to pursue obedience to God’s law together. The question before Reformed churches is not whether the law of Moses applies to the Christian life, but how. To neglect the law of Moses is to neglect the moral perspectives of Jesus himself, who insisted that “anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). Our task is to discern how to observe the Mosaic law in the New Testament era. Should these observances be the same for Gentiles and Jews? To what degree should cultural and personal variations be permitted?
In all events, it should be clear from a Reformed perspective that evangelism of non-Christian Jews should never give the false impression that loyalty to Moses precludes love for Christ. On the contrary, Christian evangelism should affirm that wholehearted devotion to Christ expresses itself in wholehearted devotion to Mosaic law.
Eschatology
The Reformed perspective on eschatology also provides significant guidance for evangelizing non-Christian Jews. Unfortunately, the terms “Reformed” and “eschatology” do not go together in the minds of many Christians. Most evangelicals have difficulty believing that Reformed theology has much to say about eschatology. There are at least two reasons for this misperception. First, unlike many contemporary evangelical groups, Reformed theologians seldom give themselves to sketching out particular end-time scenarios. We have remained largely skeptical of proposed dates and sequences of events.
Second, Reformed ecclesiastical bodies have normally allowed a wide variety of views among their members and officers. Reformed confessions and catechisms do not endorse particular positions on questions that preoccupy many evangelical groups. They simply affirm basic beliefs such as the return of Christ in glory, the resurrection of the dead, judgment, and the final new creation.
Despite this variety, it is fair to say that the Reformed tradition has largely been divided between amillennial and postmillennial eschatologies. On occasion, premillennial Reformed theologians have appeared, but this position has not been widespread. For this reason, we will concentrate our attention on the eschatological hopes of Reformed theologians who endorsed amillennial or postmillennial positions.
The Reformed tradition has typically affirmed a very important eschatological role for ethnic Israel in at least two ways. In the first place, Calvinists have strongly affirmed that the land promises to Israel will be fulfilled when redeemed Israel possesses the entire earth. Many evangelicals assume that only premillennial eschatology affirms the abiding validity of Israel’s land promises. In this view, to deny the premillennial return of Christ is to deny God’s faithfulness to his earthly promises and to replace them with spiritual blessings. We should point out, however, that neither Reformed amillennial nor postmillennial eschatologies suggest that the earthly promises to Israel’s patriarchs have failed. On the contrary, Reformed eschatology sees the fulfillment of Israel’s land promises on a grand scale. It is true that amillennialism and post-millennialism do not typically make much of the recent establishment of the state of Israel. Nor do they believe in a thousand year reign to follow Christ’s appearance. Instead, the land of Canaan was a mere foretaste, a first step toward total world dominion by the people of God. 41 Reformed theology has looked to the eschatological new heavens and new earth as the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes of a land. In the new creation, redeemed Jews and ingrafted Gentiles will possess the entire new earth, the geographical center of which will be the land of Canaan and the New Jerusalem.
In the second place, Reformed theologians have dealt very seriously with the implications of Paul’s paradoxical statement regarding Israel in Romans 11:28-29: “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” 42 As a result, Reformed theology has been united in maintaining a hope for the redemption of ethnic Israel.
This hope has taken two basic forms. On the one hand, some Reformed theologians have argued that Paul simply assured his readers that the Jews have not been cut off entirely from the grace of God. For this reason, the church will always have Christian Jews among it numbers. 43 On the other hand, other Reformed theologians have understood Romans 11 to teach that there will be a large scale conversion of Jews before the Second Coming. For example, the answer to Westminster Larger Catechism question 191 states that in the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer (“Thy kingdom come”), we should pray among other things that “the Jews [may be] called.” This too is the opinion expressed in the marginal notes on Romans 11:26 in the Geneva Bible. 44 Other well-known theologians have taken this position as well. For example, Charles Hodge wrote, “The second great event, which, according to the common faith of the church, is to precede the second advent of Christ, is the national conversion of the Jews.” 45
This future hope for the widespread conversion of ethnic Israel has followed two basic patterns in Reformed theology. On the one hand, postmillennialists often look upon this event as the final stage of the Christ’s victorious church. The gospel goes forth to all the world, and ethnic Israel joins in the worldwide redemption which ushers in the return of Christ. On the other hand, amillennialists tend to understand ethnic Israel’s eschatological conversion as a divine response to Gentile apostasy, not as a great climax of the gospel’s victory over the world. 46
Despite these differences, one common element appears in the Reformed tradition on the future conversion of ethnic Israel: any large scale Jewish conversion must come through the preaching of the gospel. This position strongly opposes any eschatology that provides ethnic Israel with an alternative avenue of salvation. The Reformed vision of Israel’s future absolutely dismisses the popular notion that non-Christian Jews will have the opportunity to believe in Christ when they see him coming in glory. When Christ appears in glory, it will be too late for unrepentant Gentiles and Jews alike. The Divine Warrior will strike out in judgment against the rebellious nations of the earth as well as apostates in Israel.
What are the implications of Reformed eschatology for gospel ministry to non- Christian Jews? At least two concerns come to the foreground. In the first place, the Reformed outlook draws attention to the kind of hope we offer to non-Christian Jews in the gospel of Christ. The Christian faith points to the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes for earthly victory and prosperity. From the time of the exile of Israel and Judah until now, the persecution and suffering of the righteous in Israel has created severe theological and physical crises. The laments have risen heavenward throughout the millennia. What has happened to the promises to the patriarchs? Has God forgotten his promise to give Israel victory over the nations that have persecuted her? When will God bring justice and victory for his people? These hopes are concrete, physical and earthly, but they often seem foreign to the Christian gospel. From the Reformed perspective, however, these earthly hopes are nothing other than the inheritance we have been promised in Jesus.
The Christian gospel is the proclamation that these very real, corporeal, earthly hopes are fulfilled through the work of Christ. We announce that in Jesus we have the inauguration of that Kingdom. Already the stronghold of evil has been broken through the death and resurrection of Christ. In the ongoing work of the Spirit today, we see different aspects of this eschatological vision fulfilled throughout the world. Moreover, every hope of the faithful remnant of Israel will come to complete fruition in the return of Christ.
From the Reformed perspective, the Christian gospel which we announce to Gentile and Jew alike does not promise an individual salvation of eternal heavenly bliss. Instead, the Christian gospel announces that the earthly hopes of God’s people Israel will become a never-ending historical reality on the new earth at Christ’s return. At that time, the enemies of God’s people will be destroyed, the earth will be renewed, and God’s people will inherit the earth. This focus of the Christian gospel is often lost from contemporary evangelism, but it must be reaffirmed in the strongest terms, especially in ministry to non-Christian Jews. 47
A second implication of Reformed eschatology recalls that the Reformed tradition insists that like Gentiles, Jews can only experience the future glory of the Kingdom of God by receiving the gospel of Christ now. As a result, we have an urgent responsibility to bring the gospel to Jewish communities. Our hearts should break over the condition of Jews who live apart from their Messiah. Our love and high regard for the people who received God’s irrevocable call should stir our hearts to bring them the good news of Christ so that they might be rescued from the coming judgment.
Moreover, whether we believe that there will be a large scale conversion of Jews to Christ or not, focusing evangelistic attention on Jewish communities is our eschatological responsibility. Evangelical organizations frequently focus on Jesus’ words that “this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14). As a result, they work diligently to spread the gospel to every identifiable Gentile people group. Of course, we should applaud these efforts. But when this focus on Gentiles entirely displaces evangelistic concern for ethnic Israel, we have gone too far. Insofar as we our eschatology leads us to expect our age to include the conversion of Jews, we are responsible not just to reach the Gentile world for Christ, but to reach Israel as well.
Conclusion
I began this paper by suggesting that the Reformed tradition has a lot to learn and some things to contribute to shaping gospel ministry to non-Christian Jews. This paper is a call for Reformed churches to reconsider their commitments to this task. Our tradition has been so oriented toward the Gentile world that we have often failed to seek the lost in Israel. It is time for us to follow through with the implications of Reformed theology by reaffirming and applying our commitments to this ministry opportunity. At the same time, it would appear that Reformed theology also has perspectives that can contribute to reassessments within other traditions. The unity of the Testaments in the covenant of grace, the one people of God, the harmony of law and gospel, and the eschatological vision of Israel’s future offer outlooks that may enhance the efforts of other branches of the church as well. In all events, every Christian tradition should search deeply within itself and interact with other theological perspectives to find every legitimate and effective way to bring the gospel of Christ to those Jews who still have not found their Messiah.
APPENDIX
Overture on Jewish Evangelism20th General Assembly Presbyterian Church in America 48
Whereas Messiah Jesus commanded that “repentance and forgiveness of sins be preached in His name to all nations beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47);
Whereas there has been an organized effort on the part of some who claim to profess the name of Christ to deny that Jewish people need to come to Him to be saved;
Whereas these people have spread a false hope and security that Jewish people can inherit eternal life apart from the faith in God’s New Covenant promises foretold by the Jewish prophets (Jeremiah 31:31, Isaiah 53);
Therefore, the 20th General Assembly of the PCA re-affirms that we are “not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Romans 1:16);
Re-affirms that “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) and “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Philippians 2:10);
Re-affirms that anyone and everyone – Jewish or Gentile – who fails to receive Jesus, Messiah of Israel, as Savior and Lord, as taught in the New Covenant, will perish eternally; for Peter, appointed as Apostle to the Jewish people (Galatians 2:7), pleaded with the men of Israel, “save yourselves from this corrupt generation” (Acts 2:1-41);
Re-commits itself to prayer for all peoples – Jewish & Gentile, to turn to the God of Israel and His Holy Messiah Jesus in faith, as the Westminster Larger Catechism states, we are to pray that “the gospel [be] propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in” (Westminster Larger Catechism answer to Question 191);
Re-commits itself to the preaching of the gospel of Christ to all peoples – Jewish & Gentile, and condemns as the worst form of anti-semitism withholding the gospel from the Jewish people;
Condemns as erroneous the false teaching held by some that salvation for Jews today is possible apart from the Gospel of Christ due to the Abrahamic Covenant, for this heresy necessarily involves denying the completed atonement for sin accomplished through our Messiah (Hebrews 9:15).
We therefore re-affirm, in accord with the scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, that it is our duty, as Messiah’s people, to take the gospel to all the peoples of the earth, including the Jewish people. We call the Jewish people, through whom Jesus came, to join us in faith in their own Messiah, obedience to their own King, Jesus the “King of the Universe”, and in the proclamation of His gospel to all peoples, for that same Jesus will one day return to judge the world (Acts 1:11).
Notes:
1. Much thanks belongs to Ra McLaughlin, webmaster and editor for Third Millennium Ministries, for his editorial work with this manuscript.
2. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) with some modifications is the official doctrinal standard of many Reformed and Presbyterian denominations. It therefore adequately represents some of the central features of the Reformed theological system.
3. It should be noted that these and related topics appear in a number of important writings by Reformed theologians. See for instance: Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979. Holwerda, David E. Jesus and Israel — One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. Berkouwer, G.C. The Church. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976. Berkouwer, G.C. Faith and Sanctification. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952. Berkouwer, G.C. The Return of Christ. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972. Murray, Iain H. The Puritan Hope. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1971. Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace. London: Tyndale
4. For a summary of covenant in Reformed theology see: Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980, pp. 234-267.
5. Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980, pp. 201-227. Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963; The Structure of Biblical Authority. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1997; Kingdom Prologue. S. Hamilton: M.G. Kline, 1993.
6. WCF 7.3-7.6; 14.2; 17.2; 27.1; 28.1; Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) 30-36,162; Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) 20,94. As we describe the covenant of grace, we should note that the viewpoint of the Westminster Assembly is a theological construct. It was not directly dependent on specific biblical passages or vocabulary of covenant. Instead, it summarized an assortment of biblical teachings on divine-human relations, much like the doctrine of the Trinity brought together many affirmations about the godhead into one doctrine.
7. WCF 7.2; 19.1; WLC 30
8. WLC 20; WSC 12
9. WCF 7.5
10. WCF 7.6
11. WCF 7.5
12. WCF 7.5
13. WCF 7.5
14. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993, pp. 437.
15. Clowney, Edmund P. The Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 42-44. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993, vol. 3, pp. 548-552. 16 WCF 25.1
16. WCF 25.1
17. WCF 25.2
18. Compare London Baptist Confession (1689) 26.2.
19. WCF 25.2
20. WCF 25.5
21. WCF 25.5
22. WCF 7.5; 20.1; 25.2
23. Formula of Concord, Article 6.
24. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966, pp. 614-615. Spitz, Lewis W., and Wenzel Lohff, eds. Discord, Dialogue, and Concord. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977, pp. 93-94.
25. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993, p. 256.
26. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.7.4; 2.7.7.
27. The Heidelberg Catechism reflects Calvin’s perspective when it sets the Ten Commandments under the rubric of “Of Gratitude” or “Of Thankfulness” (questions 92- 115).
28. WCF 19.1
29. WCF 19.2
30. WCF 19.1. In this way, the Reformed perspective on Mosaic law is similar to rabbinical declarations of the eternality of Torah (see Pirqe Abot 1.2; 3.23).
31. WCF 19.3
32. WCF 19.4
33. WCF 19.5
34>. WCF 19.3
35. WCF 19.4
36. WCF 19.6
37. See Barker, William S., and W. Robert Godfrey, eds. Theonomy — A Reformed Critique. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1990.
38. Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:21, 25, 42; 18:18; 21:20-26; 22:17; 23:4-5; 24:10-18; 25:8.
39. Acts 10:1—11:18; Gal 2:11-21; Eph 2:11-22
40. 1 Cor 9:20-22; Gal 2:11-21
41. Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993, pp. 298-299. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, 2.11.2, pp. 451-452.
42. Holwerda, David E. Jesus and Israel — One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995, pp. 153-154,168-175.
43. See Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979, pp.143-147; Murray, Iain H. The Puritan Hope. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1971, pp. 48-49, 61-65.
44. Murray, Iain H. The Puritan Hope. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1971, p. 41.
45. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993, vol. 3, p. 805. See similar sentiments in: Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Second Edition, vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1812, pp. 443-444 and 454-455; Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1984, vol. I, p. 28 and vol. II pp. xiv-xv and 76-101; Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments. Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1948, Tenth Printing, p. 79; The Pauline Eschatology. Baker Book House, 1979, p. 88; Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co. 1980, p. 35; Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. vol. 1, Banner of Truth Trust, 1976, p. 607; Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary. vol.6, MacDonald Publishing Company, pp. 448-453, as cited by CHAIM [http://www.chaim.org].
46. Berkouwer, G.C. The Return of Christ. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972, 323-358.
47. Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.
48. As cited by CHAIM [http://www.chaim.org/ga.htm]
