The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the purposes of God

We continue our rebuttal of replacement theology.

Another text, which supercessionists[1] consider is a help to their case is 1 Peter 2.9,10, because Peter applies a cluster of terms to the Church which had previously been applied to Israel. But if the case for supercessionism has not been proved by other texts, this one on it own cannot do it. The first question that should be asked is: ‘who was Peter writing to?’ when he said, ‘you are a chosen race …’. He himself tells us – they are “sojourners of the dispersion” (Gk. parepidemois diasporas)(1.Pet.1.1) Wuest says, “the word ‘scattered’ is from ‘diasporas’ (dispersion) and is used in John 7.35 and James 1.1, in both places referring to those Jews who were living outside of Palestine.  Peter uses it in the same way.  The recipients of this letter were Christian Jews.”[2] That Peter is writing to the Jews of the dispersion should be expected since he is the apostle to the Jews. That He is writing to Jewish Christians is borne out by internal evidence also since he alludes to the T’nach on 29 occasions. In respect of the text itself, ‘race’ and ‘nation’ cannot apply to the Church but can apply to Israel. The dictionary definition of ‘nation’ is “a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory”.^[3] Israel fits that description exactly, whereas the Church cannot. Indeed, there are several other texts that use the word ‘nation’ to describe Israel, but there are none that clearly use the word ‘nation’ to describe the Church. And even if we allow that the text refers to the Church, all that can be maintained is that there is continuity in God’s dealing with humanity. That those He takes as His own people, Israel first and then the Church, are constituted in a similar fashion. Both are chosen, are priests, are holy, and belong to God. Parallelism does not indicate replacement; similarity does not prove identity.

Philippians.3.3 contains a phrase that is also used to support the replacement point of view: “for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh”. But what Paul is doing here is countering the false teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation. “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision”. (3.2) The Old Testament rite of physical circumcision was not only a sign of covenant relationship, but it was also intended to be related to spiritual circumcision of the heart.[4] (cf. Deut. 30:6). Writing to Gentiles, Paul wants them to understand that they do not need to be physically circumcised to come into a relationship with God. They come under a covenant relationship if they had no confidence in the flesh and “worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus”. (Phil.3.3) He is not redefining the definitions of Church and Israel.  He was stating that those who had exercised faith in Christ did not need to be physically circumcised as the Jewish party contended. Salvation is based on Christ’s righteousness not on the ‘flesh’. To rephrase it, no-one needs to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But what about those texts which speak of Christians as the ‘sons of Abraham’? Does this mean they have been constituted Jews? For example, “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham”. (Gal.3.7) See also Gal.3.29 and Rom.4.11. Replacement theologians argue that Gentile association with Abraham must mean that Gentile believers are a part of a new spiritual Israel. The logic is based on the assumption that being a son of Abraham automatically makes one a Jew. But this is not so. The argument of Scripture is that Abraham was a believer before he was circumcised. That is why believers generally are Abraham’s descendents and heirs according to promise.[1]  Vlach argues that “replacement theologians are too restrictive in their definition of what makes one a “son” or “seed” of Abraham.  A Gentile believer can be a “son” or a “seed” of Abraham by faith without becoming a Jew”.[2] It would be different if the New Testament referred to the saints as the children or ‘seed’ of Jacob, or to use an Old Testament phrase, ‘children of Israel’ but it does not. The blessing that Gentiles enjoy comes from that element of the Abrahamic Covenant that prophesies and promises that in Abraham shall all the families of the earth be blessed, or more particularly, as Paul sees it, “the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” (Gal. 3:8) There is no hint here that the blessing comes upon Gentiles as a result of the promise made to Abraham that he would become a great nation. This shows that Gentiles can be ‘sons of Abraham’ and related to the Abrahamic covenant without becoming spiritual Jews. You do not have to become a Jew to be saved, and you do not become a Jew, even a spiritual Jew, once you have been saved.

 

In Eph.2.11-19 the work of Christ is described as including a unity between Jew and Gentile.  He has made “both groups into one” (2.14); He made “the two into one new man” (2.15) and He reconciled “both in one body” (2.16) Does this mean that the Gentiles have been incorporated into a new, redefined Israel. This text does not refer to the Gentiles being incorporated into a redefined Israel but rather Jewish believers and Gentile believers are brought together into a new entity, a new creation, “one new man” – the Church. That Jewish believers have been brought into the Church does not erase God’s purposes for ethnic Israel.

---

[1] Gal.3.29 (see also Rom. 4.8-18)

[2] Michael J. Vlach. ‘Has The Church Replaced Israel In God’s Plan?’ Conservative Theological Journal Vol.4 (April 2000)

---

[1] Those that hold to the doctrine of replacement theology

[2] Wuest’s studies in the Greek New Testament. Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids

^[3]Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[4] Deut.30.6

cf. confer, compare