The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

The Church and the Abrahamic Covenant

A comparison of Israel and the Church - The Similarities

While there are contrasts between Israel and the Church, it should be observed that, in certain respects, there are similarities between these two groups of people, which are only to be expected. It is still the same God, with the same principles of righteousness. He will always act in love and mercy and will always be found of the individual who would seek Him with all their heart.

(i)                       Both Israel and the Church have a relationship to God which at rock bottom stands on the ground of faith. Salvation through all dispensations will be ‘by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone’. The only difference is the means by which God’s mercy is dispensed.

(ii)                     So each, in turn, has its own peculiar relation to God, to righteousness, to sin, to redemption, to salvation, to human responsibility, and to destiny.

(iii)                   They are each witnesses to the Word of God; each may claim the same Shepherd; they have doctrines in common; the death of Christ avails in its own way for each; they are alike loved with an everlasting love; and each, as determined by God, will be glorified.

The similarities, in part, have given rise to a doctrine of replacement, that is, that since the language of Scripture speaks of the Church in a similar way to that which treats of Israel, then the Church, the entity brought into being subsequent to the rejection of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, must be Israel’s replacement. It is suggested that the Church is now the true ‘seed’ of Abraham; that the circumcision of the heart is the true ‘circumcision’. Those that hold to this view of Scripture believe that the Church has superseded Israel in the purposes of God. This doctrine has been held by the majority of believers since the second century A.D. But is it correct? No doubt, the reader already understands that this writer does not subscribe to replacement theology. But on what grounds? We will examine the replacement view in the next chapter, but before that we can take a look at the land aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Church and the ‘land’ aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant

 

The treatment of this subject will, of necessity, be very brief. In the Abrahamic Covenant the land was promised to the natural ‘seed’ of Abraham as a homeland. The Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal, unconditional covenant. Therefore, the Jewish people will receive it, and occupy it as promised. The Land will live up to its description of fruitfulness, that is, a land flowing with milk and honey.[1] It will be a place of peace and safety and righteousness will be its hallmark. Its inhabitants will work and be productive and enjoy not only the fruits of their labor but also all aspects of life under the watchful eye of the God that neither slumbers nor sleeps.[2] Jerusalem will be the capital city of the world, and the throne of David will be set up there, in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. It will be from Jerusalem that Jesus will reign when He returns. In view of the foregoing, it can be stated clearly – the Church has no title to the land of Israel, nor in the will of God, will she occupy it at any time. It has been promised to the ethnic race of Israel and they will inherit and inhabit it. It will require the nation to return to the God of Jacob and receive Jesus as Messiah, Son of David and Son of God – this they will do – as foretold by the prophets of Israel.

Next Time: Has the Church replaced Israel in the Purposes of God?

---

[1] Isa.30.23-26; 35.1,2; 65.21-24; etc.

[2] Ps.121.4; Jer.31.1-6; 11-14; Ezek.34.25-31. etc