The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Concluding Summary

The Abrahamic Covenant.

 

We began by suggesting that the purpose of God, formed before the foundation of the world, was that He was set on creating a living organism with which He could have fellowship. He was aiming to bring into being, a complex and unique group of living creatures, who together would be able to receive and give love. And because this unit, which we can now identify as the Church, would be made up of many and varied individuals, it would be of such caliber and stature that it would be a worthy object of the love and attention of the Godhead.

The Abrahamic Covenant was the beginning of that process. Abraham was to be father of the faithful –‘the faithful’ being drawn from all nations. Abraham, elected by God to be the door through which abundant blessings would flow, began the process. He believed God and was imputed righteous. From his loins came the nation that would bring the knowledge of God, understand fellowship with God and recognize the righteousness of God.

The Mosaic Covenant.

This covenant was designed to continue the underlying purpose of God. The nation was to be trained in righteousness and fellowship. God dwelt among them – they knew His presence – they heard His word – they had His protection. The covenant not only laid on them obedience to the righteous requirements of the Lord, but they were also commanded to love Him. They were being trained to take their place in new entity that was the ultimate goal of God.

The Land Covenant

The land covenant which imposed conditions on the occupation of the Promised Land was designed to encourage the faithfulness of Israel. Be faithful and be safe in your homeland; but if you apostatize you will be evicted.

The Davidic Covenant

This covenant, while initially being part of the plan of God to bring to Israel the Messiah, the promised seed of Abraham, was also a great encouragement to them through dark times. While this covenant was in place (and it was always in place) they always had hope. They could anticipate a Deliverer, a Son of David to come and rescue them.

The New Covenant

This was promised to the nation during one of its darkest periods. When things were at their worst God made a covenant promise that there would be a day when the nation would come into the fullness of the blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant. This was where the Abrahamic Covenant was pointing – to the blessing of God upon the nation, which would also be the catalyst for blessing for the whole of humankind.

The Messiah

Jesus of Nazareth, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, was the ‘seed’ of Abraham, and the instrument by which the Abrahamic Covenant could be fulfilled. He was a law abiding Hebrew who obeyed and fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant in every aspect. He knew His covenants and prophesied that His rejection would activate the Land Covenant, and Israel would lose their temple, city and homeland. But He also knew that a future quickening of both the Davidic and New Covenants would bring blessing to the nation and they would again occupy the land and enjoy fellowship with the God that had chosen them. In the meantime, His death, the great act that allowed an immediate activation of the New Covenant, was to be of such a magnitude that the salvation of God would reach the ends of the earth. So any individual who recognizes who He is and what He has done has access to the blessings that are available under the Abrahamic and New Covenants.

The Church

Those believers who now make up the members of the body of the Messiah, the Church, rejoice that God elected a man, ‘cut’ a covenant with him, trained the nation that came from him by means of a conditional covenant, and offered them unconditional covenants by which the means of salvation could proliferate to all people. The members of the Church recognize that the benefits of salvation come to them through the death of the Jewish Messiah, and they have eternal life because they can share in the blessings of the Abrahamic and New Covenants. Consequently they acknowledge the debt they owe to the Hebrew nation, and are happy to confess that Israel remains God’s chosen people, and they still feature in His future plans.

The Nation of Israel

The Scriptures teach that they will yet come into the fullness of the Abrahamic Covenant; they will possess the Land; they will know success in a kingdom ruled under in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant; for the nation will be saved on the basis of the New Covenant.

 

This brings us to the end of this particular study. I am considering closing this blog. If any that read would wish me to continue, please email me to say so. I can be reached at bryan@bryansbiblestudy.co.uk

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the Purposes of God?

We continue with a rebuttal of replacement theology

We suggested last time that the disobedience of Israel cannot invalidate a covenant that was unconditional. But it might be suggested that God is sovereign and it is His covenant and He can do as He wishes. No, He cannot! Everything in Scripture declares that God cannot do anything that is illegal, under-handed or unrighteous. And to take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, how is it that those that say the Church is now the beneficiary of these Covenants, cling firmly to the idea that there are no conditions placed on the Church for remaining the beneficiary? If the Lord could put aside Israel for disobedience, how is it that the Church remains inviolable. Even a cursory glance at Church history would suggest that the Church should have been put aside, just as Israel was, and the benefits passed on to another group. No, the confidence we have is that God is omniscient, that is, He is all wise, He sees the end from the beginning. He is also immutable; He is unchanging, unchangeable and unchanged. This surely includes the sense that He does not change His mind. “The word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Pet. 1:25) The very chapter (Jeremiah 31) which includes the foundational text for the New Covenant declares that God loves Israel with an everlasting love.[1] There is no way in which they will not enjoy future blessing from His hand. It is our confidence that what He has promised He will perform that leads us to believe that we are in possession of eternal life. If it is or becomes conditional at any time, then few of us will see heaven.

 Conclusion

 The texts currently used to support replacement theology fail at each point. Israel is never said to be permanently rejected by God. The titles ‘Israel’ and ‘Jew’ are never used of Gentile believers. Old Testament language can be applied to the Church without the Church becoming Israel. Believing Gentiles can become ‘sons’ of Abraham without becoming Jews. Spiritual equality between Jew and Gentile does not mean that there will not be a functional distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the future. Access to the New Covenant by the Church does not annul a future eschatological fulfillment with Israel.

 Does it matter which doctrine is correct? Of course it does. At stake here is the character of God – is He trustworthy?  Can we rely on His promises? There are three unconditional covenants for Israel to delight in - the Abrahamic, the Davidic and the New Covenant. If He has set aside the Jewish nation then He has broken His word.

 Moreover, the great doctrines of the Bible are inter-connected. To be in error in one area will impact on other main streams of truth. For example the Lord is pleased to be known as the “God of Israel”,[2] the “God of Abraham”,[3] as well as the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod. 3.6), a title which was confirmed and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22.32. Are these titles now to be jettisoned because we have de-Judaized the covenantal God of the T’nach?

 Then there is the doctrine of the Messiah Himself, better known as ‘Christology’. Supercessionism has, to a degree, reduced our appreciation of the Jewishness of Jesus. We do not give sufficient importance to the nation and history that produced the Savior of the world. We do not draw extra light from understanding His Jewish background, for He was born of a Jewish virgin, had a Davidic lineage and taught as a travelling Rabbi.

 The greatest impact, it would appear, is on ‘eschatology’, that is the doctrine of the end times. Since, under replacement teaching the Jewish nation has been set aside, there can be no expectation of their restoration. Under supercessionism there will be no return of the nation to their land, no future Temple and no Jewish evangelists on a mission to the Gentiles. This view of future events will require a manipulation of all the Scriptures that deal with the rapture of the Church, the period of tribulation, the return of Christ, the Millennial kingdom and judgments to come.

 Those who hold a supercessionist outlook must find the Old Testament a very uncomfortable book, for it makes it clear that it is impossible for the Jewish nation to be separated from God, for they are “inscribed on the palms of (His) hands” (Isaiah 49.16). As long as He occupies the throne of heaven, the position of the Jewish nation must remain secure, and the Church can remain confident in their covenant keeping God. Because He will keep His covenant promises to Israel, we can be assured that our future in His care is safe, because that is the blanket of blessing under which we rest.

 

More Next Time:

---

[1] Jer.31.3

[2] There are 203 references to this Name, some of them owned by the Lord Himself.

[3] There are 17 references to this identification, including some which speak of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

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

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

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the Purposes of God?

In my view - No! We continue with my reasons why we should reject the replacement view.

 

      Another verse that is quoted to support the replacement view is Romans 9.6 “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel”.  By this, it is suggested that in this reference the term Israel encompasses Gentile believers as well as Jewish believers. But this section of Romans (chapters 9 through 11) is dealing with ethnic Israel, and this verse surely must be interpreted similarly. This reference, Romans 9.6, is bracketed between two expressions of ethnic Israel. In verses 3 to 5 Paul expresses his concern regarding his Jewish brothers and sisters. “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen”. Then the other side of verse 6 i.e. verses 7 to 9 there is another reference to ethnic Israel, that is, the children of Abraham through Sarah. “Nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.’” (Rom. 9:7-9) There is no indication that Paul is introducing a different definition of Israel between these two statements.

A more satisfying explanation of the teaching contained in the text “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” is that the believing remnant within the nation are identified as ‘Israel’ within ‘Israel’. That ‘Israel’ is made up of believing and unbelieving Jews. This would certainly be the understanding of the concept of ‘Jew’ in Romans 2.28,29, another verse that is used to support the view that God has replaced Israel with the Church. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” (Rom. 2:28,29) What this teaches is that a real Jew is one who is a faithful, believing child of Abraham, in contrast to someone who simply relies on having been born of Jewish parents. Again, it is dealing with the difference between believing and non-believing Jews, and is not introducing the concept of Gentiles being ‘spiritual Jews’. Paul, in this section, is addressing that old chestnut that the Jews invariably raised, “We are Abraham’s descendants” (John 8:33).  Their doctrine is given a voice in the Mishnah where it says, “All Israelites have a share in the world to come”.[1] This doctrine declares that if you are a Jew you are safe. “All Israelites” have a share in the world to come. It is true that the Mishnah does subsequently make some exceptions to the “all Israelites” but they are only those who were notoriously wicked, like Ahab. Paul is arguing that all Israelites will NOT have a share in the world to come. He is following the line of reasoning that had been expressed by Jesus,[2] and John the Baptist.[3]  The Messiah, the Fore-runner and the Apostle to the Gentiles would all tell you, outward observance is not enough; circumcision must be, “of the heart”, (Rom.2.29) that is the purpose of these verses. The distinction that Paul makes here is between Jews who trust in externals and Jews who have faith. He is not widening the concept of ‘Jew’ to include Gentiles. William MacDonald wrote: “A real Jew is the one who is not only a descendant of Abraham but who also manifests a godly life. This passage does not teach that all believers are Jews, or that the Church is the Israel of God. Paul is talking about those who are born of Jewish parentage and is insisting that the mere fact of birth and the ordinance of circumcision are not enough. There must also be inward reality”. Supporters of replacement theology must look elsewhere for firm ground to build on.

More Next Time

---

[1] Mishnah: Sanhedrin 10.1.A

[2] John 8.33 ff

[3] Luke 3.8

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

Has the Church replaced Israel in the purposes of God?

In my view NO!!!!

Why should we reject the replacement view?

 We should reject the replacement view because at best it implies God is duplicitous, and at worst it makes Him a liar. The plain meaning of Scripture is that God has made Covenant promises to Israel and He is expected to fulfill them. The basic Abrahamic Covenant which was the foundation for the Land, Davidic and New Covenants was established in a way to preclude any doubt. “For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, “Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.” And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”. (Heb. 6:13-20) If this Scripture means anything, it means that God does not change His mind; and remember, it was written by a Jew to other Jews. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles wrote of the chosen people,  “Concerning … election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”. (Rom. 11:28-29) The dictionary meaning of irrevocable is: “not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered”.[1] The Bible declares, “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Num. 23:19) The temptation in the Garden of Eden began, “Has God indeed said”. (Gen. 3:1)  We maintain He has said – He declared that the seed of Abraham will come into the full blessing of salvation, they will know God, from the least to the greatest of them, they will inherit the Land and they will enjoy the honor of being the people of God, the wife of Jehovah and His special treasure. If the Jewish people cannot rely on the Covenant promises of God, then how can Gentile believers have any confidence in God’s word?

 But those that contend that the New Covenant is now the possession of the Church would suggest that it did not require God to change His mind. That it is simply a matter of interpretation. They would suggest that where you read Israel in the T’nach you could substitute Church, for the Church was in view all along. That it was always the divine intention that Israel should be put forward in Scripture as a type of the Church. If it is said that God did not mean what He said through the Old Testament writers, but rather there was a hidden meaning beneath the  text, that would seem to imply again that God is less than honest. It suggests that Israel was only commissioned to produce the environment for the birth of the Messiah, the seed of the woman, and once that purpose was accomplished the nation was superseded by the Church as His people. This scenario certainly flies in the face of what Dr. David L. Cooper, late director of the Biblical Society, put forward as the ‘Golden Rule of Interpretation’, that is, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”[2] Simply put, this law states that ALL biblical passages are to be taken exactly as they read unless something in the text indicates it should be taken some other way than literally.

But the replacement theologian will respond to say – we are not imposing this doctrine on Scripture, it arises from new revelation that is available from the inspired writers of the New Testament. Progressive revelation means that we must re-read the Old Testament in the light of the more recent revelation provided by the New. LaRondelle has stated, “the New Testament is the authorized and authoritative interpreter of the Old Testament”.[3] On this basis, supercessionists feel comfortable in rejecting a literal interpretation of Old Testament texts, and are able to say that the literal texts relating to Israel are now finding their spiritual fulfillment in the Church.

The difficulty with this view is that the clear statements of the Old Testament have to be re-interpreted on very flimsy grounds. It suggests that with the New Testament in our hands we are able to say that God did not mean what He said then but that He meant something else. If that is the case, would He have not included a statement to that effect in the New Testament? But there is no text that says that Israel has been permanently rejected, and been replaced by the Church. This statement, of course, would be challenged by those that hold the replacement view. They contend that there are such texts. Essential to their case is Galatians 6.16. “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God”.  For their position to hold, this has to be translated as the NIV84 translates it: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God”. They require the Greek word ‘kai’ to be translated ‘even’ and not ‘and’, thus making those who walk according to the rule previously advertised, “the Israel of God”. Yet the most common use of ‘kai’ is ‘and’ (the continuative or copulative (joining) sense).  The second most frequent use is the adjunctive sense ‘also’.  The sense of ‘even’ (the explicative sense) is very rare.  Thus the NASB; NRSV; ESV; ASV; NKJV; KJV and Darby all translate it ‘and’. The Greek scholar Marvin Vincent explains, “The καὶ and may be simply connective, in which case the Israel of God may be different from as many as walk, etc., and may mean truly converted Jews. Or the καὶ may be explicative, in which case the Israel of God will define and emphasize as many as, etc., and will mean the whole body of Christians, Jewish and Gentile. In other words, they who walk according to this rule form the true Israel of God. The explicative καὶ is at best doubtful here, and is rather forced, although clear instances of it may be found in 1 Cor. 3:5; 15:38. It seems better to regard it as simply connective”^[4] (my emphasis). To rely on a verse that is not rock solid in its meaning is weakening to their case.

Moreover, every other reference in both Old and New Testaments that uses the word ‘Israel’ uses it in its ethnic sense. You would have to have compelling reasons to change its meaning in Gal.6.16 and the context does not provide those compelling reasons.

More Next Time;

---

[1] Concise Oxford English Dictionary

[2] See Biblical Research Studies Group at  www.biblicalresearch.info/page 55.html

[3] LaRondelle, ‘The Israel of God in Prophecy’

^[4]Vincent, M. R. (2002). Word studies in the New Testament (4:180). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

The Messiah and the Covenants of Israel

We have considered the covenants of Israel. Now we have to face the question, was Israel permanently rejected as the people of God because they rejected the Messianic claim of Jesus? The question is usually phrased:

Has the Church Replaced Israel in the Purposes of God?

It is necessary to consider this subject because we maintain that the Church came into blessing on the grounds of a covenant which the Lord made with Israel – a covenant, which according to Scripture, has not yet been implemented for them as a nation. The replacement view maintains that the dynamics of the implementation of the New Covenant has removed Israel as the beneficiary of the Covenant and substituted them with the Church. They maintain that this major shift in divine policy was made as a result of Israel’s national rejection of Jesus, their Messiah. Stated simply - because they rejected their Messiah, God rejected them, and replaced them with the Church. Consequently the Church inherited the covenant blessings originally promised to Israel. Thomas Ice said that replacement theology “is the view that the Church has permanently replaced Israel through which God works and that national Israel does not have a future in the plan of God”.[1] Replacement theologian, Bruce K. Waltke said, “The hard fact (is) that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the Church and the New Covenant”.[2] We need to be very sure of our ground here, because we began by stating that a main feature of God’s glory was His ḥesed ve-ʾemet. Ḥesed is His loving kindness, that quality that involves acts of beneficence, mutuality, and those obligations that flow from a legal relationship. ʾEmet, usually translated “truth,” encompasses reliability, durability, and faithfulness. The combination of the two terms expresses God’s absolute and eternal dependability in dispensing His benefactions. If He has, even in the smallest degree, withdrawn any element of an unconditional covenant with His ancient people, then the concept of the glory of God being best seen in His faithfulness and reliability must be undermined.

 It is true that the national implementation of the New Covenant for Israel was delayed because of the national rejection of the Messianic claim of Jesus, but as we have already indicated, the New Covenant was activated immediately by the Messiah for individual Israelites if they qualified to benefit from it. In other words, individual Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah became beneficiaries under the New Covenant. Let us restate our view that while the national implementation of the Covenant is yet future, the execution of the Covenant for individual Jews is current.Every Israelite who acknowledges the person and work of Yeshua HaMashiac (Jesus the Messiah) comes under the New Covenant and is ‘born again’ (to use a Jewish term). We also believe that Gentiles can come into blessing on the same grounds, that is, on the basis of the New Covenant, by acknowledging the person and work of Jesus the Messiah, Son of David, Son of God. This comes about because of the desire of the Lord that His salvation should reach the ends of the earth.[3]

 That the door was opened to the Gentiles to ‘share’ in the blessings of the New Covenant does not mean that the multi-national group of believers, corporately called ‘the Church’ has replaced the national ethnic group called ‘Israel’ in the purposes of God. But the rejection of the replacement view needs to be supported by more than statements.

More Next Time :

---

[1] Thomas Ice, “What do you do with a future National Israel in the Bible,” The Thomas Ice Collection, n.d., p. 2.

[2] Bruce K. Waltke “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual”, in Continuity and Discontinuity, 274 (quoted by Michael J. Vlach in his dissertation ‘The Church as a Replacement of Israel” p.12)

[3]  Isa.49.6

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