Israel-centric Scriptures and Theological Make-believe<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Dr. Randy White
As the modern state of Israel celebrates its 64th birthday (click here for my article on Israel's 63rd birthday), I want to analyze a couple of very Israel-centric Bible passages and show how many modern theologians have to play a game of Linguistic Twister to get the passage to mean something clearly different than it says.  You may be amazed at the verbal hoola-hoops and grammatical gymnastics that learned men of the cloth will perform in order to avoid a pro-Israel interpretation of undeniably pro-Israel passages in the New Testament.
<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "http://www.logos.com/smarttags" />Matthew 10:5-7
"These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: 'Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matthew 10:5–7, NASB95)
Jesus could not have been more emphatic in his instruction to the twelve.  They clearly were to have an Israel-centric message about the Kingdom (which was and is Israel-centric by any stretch of sane interpretation).  Any Bible student who understands Kingdom promises has absolutely no problem with these instructions from Jesus to the Disciples.  Those who have twisted and perverted Kingdom theology into something that spiritualizes the Kingdom and locates it in our hearts or in the heavens, and have an equality theology that removes all distinction between Jew and Gentile are the ones who begin to foam at the mouth when Jesus says, "Only go to Jews!"
Oh, the creativity by which they wax eloquently to reinterpret the passage into something that denies any favoritism to the Jews!  In fact, their stretches in interpretation even begin to verge on anti-Semitism, as you will see.
For our first example, I'll consider the Broadman Commentary, arguably the worst Biblical series ever published by Southern Baptists.  In explaining this text, the author says that,  "had Jesus gone first to the Gentiles…the Jews would have had more excuse to reject him…he attacked the problem of discrimination where first he met it, within Judaism." (emphasis mine)
Somehow-my mind is boggled-Jesus was attacking discrimination by being discriminatory!    Somehow-oh, for the understanding-Jesus was overcoming prejudice by telling His disciples to show prejudice.  I'll just respond the way my 17 year-old son would:  "that's dumb!"
But the creative stupidity continues:
"There is no favoritism [in going to the Jews only] for the mission is one of mercy and hence of judgment…Before a gospel of mercy and grace is offered pagans, it is first offered to Jews who are equally sinners having no other hope."
This statement is almost beyond logical comprehension.  First, the commentary denies any favoritism because this is a message of "mercy and hence of judgment."  I would love to hear him explain how mercy equated to judgment, since a common definition of mercy is "not getting what you deserve," as in, "have mercy on me!"  I suppose that the author is trying to make those who might be offended by the Jew-centric instruction feel better by telling the would-be offended party that the one who appears to be receiving favoritism is actually receiving judgment.  It seems the commentator is telling the Gentile audience that we can sit back with the grin of a Cheshire cat and enjoy the show. 
Further, the author continues to say that, "Before a gospel of mercy and grace is offered pagans" (I wonder what happened to that judgment?), "it is first offered to Jews who are equally sinners having no other hope."  Because the author has spiritualized the Kingdom, now this has become a salvation gospel message, and the Jews, who are carefully noted to be "equally sinners" (I suppose that makes us feel better), will get the first chance to display to the pagans how to reject salvation.
Jennie Dugan writes about the "Israel only" command in The Priscilla Papers:
If we believe that Jesus embodied equality, how do we reconcile his drawing this [Jew-only] distinction?  …Perhaps he focused on Israel because they had been given God's truth previously and had now wandered astray. When the Pharisees attempted subtly to display superiority by asking Jesus for a miraculous sign, Jesus said, "Only an evil, faithless generation would ask for a sign," again reinforcing the idea that he was sent to the Israelites because they were lost sheep, possibly terribly lost, not because they held a superior rank. [1]
Note again how the author makes apology for Jesus and then proceeds to explain the sinfulness of the Jews as the basis for this exclusivity, presumably to make us gentiles feel better for the prejudice.
Matthew 15:21-28
Another problem passage for replacement theologians and spiritual-Kingdom preachers is Matthew 15:21-18, in which Jesus seems to go from bad to worse in His rudeness to a gentile woman:
"Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.[2]
Note the progression of the offense.  First, Jesus ignores her.  Next the disciples want her sent away.  Then Jesus says, "You're not within my target audience."  Finally he all but calls her a dog!
How does the Broadman Commentary deal with this?
"[Dogs] is not so harsh in Greek as in English and is not necessarily a term of contempt, for the diminutive term is used for dogs, possibly referring to the children's pets."
Oh, now I feel better!  I didn't realize Jesus was calling her a cute puppy!  The Broadman author continues by giving three possibilities on why Jesus would appear so rude.
·        Possibility 1: Jesus was testing her faith.
·        Possibility 2:  "Jesus took this means of instructing his disciples, assuming their position only to repudiate it as a rebuke to them." 
·        Possibility 3:  This statement "finds a struggle within Jesus himself." "Jesus struggled between his desire to give himself at once to the larger world and his purpose to give his own people every opportunity to receive him." 
My thoughts on these possibilities?
·        Possibility 1:  Did you just make that up?  On what basis do you say that Jesus tests faith by a personal rudeness?
·        Possibility 2:  Did you just make that up?  You mean Jesus took the sinfully rude position of the Disciples so that they would see in Him their sin?
·        Possibility 3:  Did you just make that up?  If you did, and you have any thought of belief in even the possibility of its truth, you hold heretical views about the Christ!
Why the author failed to note the most obvious "possibility" is beyond me, except that he must have rejected that possibility out-of-hand.  The most obvious:  Jesus is the anointed Messiah of a Kingdom belonging to Israel, and He was being consistent with all the prophets in the Israel-centric focus of this coming Kingdom.  A dispensational approach, holding to a future literal Kingdom, allows these Scriptures to make perfect sense with no twisting of words or theological make-believe.
Test Case
Why are these authors so reluctant to state the obvious conclusions about Jesus' pro-Israel ideology?  I can only conclude it is because the author's do not hold these in common with Jesus.  Book after book, commentary after commentary, preacher after preacher will apologize for Jesus on His behalf when they write or speak about these passages.  They will then tell how the words do not mean what they appear to mean or the motive was in opposition to their meaning.  In doing so, they will smear the Jews as deserving of some chastisement, judgment, or special condemnation. 
This reluctance is so prevalent among those of a replacement theology or substitute Kingdom theology that I encourage you to use these two scriptures, or other Israel-centric scriptures, as a test-case when discerning the theological viewpoint of an author or speaker.  At the conclusion of this article, I have included a few more sample passages from commentators with a replacement theology or spiritual Kingdom theology.
As for me, I believe Jesus was Israel-centric because the Kingdom is based in Israel and is for Israel.  While the gentiles will receive a blessing both in and from the Kingdom, the Kingdom is not theirs to claim.  So, on Israel's 64th anniversary as a modern state, I join in praying as Jesus taught:  THY KINGDOM COME!
__
Dr. Randy White is pastor of the First Baptist Church of Katy, Texas, and the preacher on the daily radio program Word for the World. He is the author of The Antichrist and The Three Statements of Thomas. To join his mailing list and receive his free, 90 min. DVD on the Antichrist, click here.
OTHER SAMPLE COMMENTARIES-
As you read these a commentary, as the samples below illustrate, you can look for the following signs that the author has a replacement theology or a substitute Kingdom doctrine:
·        Failure to mention the Old Testament concept of Kingdom.
·        Excuse for why Jesus would say something that sounds prejudiced.
·        Accusation that the Jewish people were deserving of special condemnation.
On Matthew 10:5-7
"…The message of the Messiah was first for the Jew.  There would not be enough time for Jesus to cover all of the villages in Palestine with His ministry.  But rather than to see this as discrimination against Gentiles, it may be read as a confrontation which challenged Jewish pride and called them to repentance."[3]
"There are many who find [this instruction] very difficult to believe that Jesus ever said this at all.  This apparent exclusiveness is very unlike him; and it has been suggested that this saying was put into his mouth by those who in the later days wished to keep the gospel for the Jews…But the great reason for this command is simply this-any wise commander knows that he must limit his objectives.  He must direct his attack at one chosen point.  If he diffuses his forces here, there and everywhere, he dissipates his strength and invites failure."[4]
On Matthew 15:21-28
"[The disciples] were so perturbed that they urged Jesus to send her away.  But He answered in a manner expressing the exclusiveness of the Jewish leaders with whom He had just recently been in conversation….Jesus expressed the common Jewish attitude toward Gentiles…Her faith that moved beyond ethnic and cultural obstacles, bypassed the forms of ritual religion, and humbly confessed the Master's Lordship, received His grace."[5]
"The tone and the look with which a thing is said make all the difference.  A thing which seems hard can be said with a disarming smile…we can be quite sure that the smile on Jesus' face and the compassion in his eyes robbed the words of all insult and bitterness…The woman was a Greek…and she had all a Greek's ready wit. 'True,' she said, 'but even the dogs get their share of the crumbs which fall from their master's table.' And Jesus' eyes lit up with joy at such an indomitable faith."[6]
 
 
 

[1] . Vol. 21: Priscilla Papers Volume 21. 2007 (4) (21). <?xml:namespace prefix = st2 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Minneapolis, MN: Christians for Biblical Equality.

[2] Matthew 15:21–28, NASB95

[3] Myron Augsburger.  The Communicator's Commentary:  Mathew.  Lloyd J. Ogilvie, General Editor.  Waco: Word Books, Publisher.  1982.  Pg. 135.

[4] William Barclay. The Daily Bible Study Series:  The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 1.  Pg. 365.

[5] Augsburger, pg. 195.

[6] Barclay, Volume 2.  Pg. 122