The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the purposes of God

We continue our rebuttal of replacement theology.

Much of the material that fuels replacement theology comes from the fact that the nation rejected their Messiah, and accepted their part in His crucifixion when they said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matt. 27:25) It is true that Jesus, anticipating His execution warned the chief priests and elders of the nation, saying, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it”. (Matt. 21:43) This, it is suggested, supports the view that Israel lost their place in the purposes of God, and was replaced by the Church. Alas, this is very poor ground to build on. It is true that Israel at that time was set aside. Paul makes the point in Romans that the branch ‘Israel’ being unfruitful was set aside and the Church has benefited greatly from it.[1] But Jesus could not have intended that the word ‘nation’ should describe the Church - the Church cannot, in any sense, being considered a ‘nation’, whereas Israel is clearly considered a nation. The Matthew 21.43 text surely relates to the fact that the kingdom of God will be given to a future generation of Israel who will have accepted Jesus as Messiah. This is supported by the fact that Jesus anticipated such a day when He promised the apostles, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel”. (Matt.19:28) He clearly envisaged a day when the kingdom would be a reality and the apostles would co-reign with Him over it. This is the kingdom in question, and that will be the generation of Israel that will be blessed in it.

And anyway, how can the disobedience of Israel invalidate a legal covenant that was unconditional? Any examination of the Abrahamic Covenant or the New Covenant will conclude that there were no conditions placed on Israel. They are the beneficiaries, and the covenants are covenants of grant, that is, God has committed Himself to fulfill the conditions of the covenants. Those that maintain that the disobedience of Israel meant they failed to meet the standard of behavior required of them, and it was within the remit of the Lord to replace Israel with the Church in respect of the Covenant are mistaken. Again, the plain understanding of Scripture does not support this.

 

Furthermore, under any understanding of covenant law it would be illegal to replace one  beneficiary with another in a covenant where the subsequent beneficiary was not named. It must be asserted that you cannot legally, morally or spiritually transfer God’s covenant with one group of people (the nation of Israel) to another group of people (the Church). Lightfoot has rightly observed, “Even a human covenant duly confirmed is held sacred and inviolable. It cannot be set aside, it cannot be clogged with new conditions. Much more then a divine covenant”. ^[2] Even if the Abrahamic and New Covenants were conditional, which they were not; and even if Israel failed to meet the criteria of those covenants, which they did not; it could only result in Israel losing the benefits promised – it still would not be legal for Israel to be substituted as beneficiary. Under those circumstances, the Lord might terminate the covenant with Israel and make a new covenant with believers in this later dispensation, but He cannot rewrite the covenant He made with Israel. Not only would it not be right, but it would also suggest that the Lord was dealing with an event that he did not foresee. No, His foreknowledge is perfect and every detail of the covenants reveals His will for Hebrew nation. Not only did He make at least three unconditional covenants with Israel, but at no point did He make them temporary.

More next time

---

[1] Rom.11.17 ff

^[2]J.B.Lightfoot. St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London: Macmillan and co. 1874