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