The two leading schools of thought concerning Israel and their relation to the Church are Dispensational Theology and Replacement Theology. Dispensational Theology sees Israel and the Church as two separate entities. Replacement Theology teaches that the Church has replaced Israel. I take an alternate view that I believe to fall somewhere in between these two extremes. That is, the Church is Israel. I have arrived at this conclusion based off of I what I believe to be the best exegesis of Rom. 9-11 along with Gal. 3: 26-29. I will present key observations from these passages as I argue for my view as well explain exactly what I mean by this statement along with consideration of the Law of Identity.
The first law of Aristotelian logic is the Law of Identity which says, “A is A.” In order for A to be A, there cannot be anything true of A that is not true of A. In Rom. 9:6, Paul says, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” Some translations read, “Not all Israel are truly Israel.” We see from the outset of Paul’s explanation that he sees a distinction between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel. In the case of Israel, there are a number of things that are true of ethnic Israel that are not true of spiritual Israel. In short, ethnic Israel is not identical to spiritual Israel.
However, I do believe that spiritual Israel is identical to the Church. The Church is the true Israel that Paul references in 9:6. This is the covenant community who belongs to God as a result of their faith in Christ. Paul also states in Gal 3, “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (26-29)”. Paul states that in Christ, the distinctions between Jew and Gentile dissolve. Thus, in Christ, the Church is identical to Israel in that all are “one in Christ Jesus.” Based on this passage, we can conclude that the Church is Israel.
The difference between my position and the dispensational view should be pretty evident. Strict dispensationalism sees the Church and Israel as two separate entities both outside of Christ and in Christ. This is to the extent that there are seemingly two different programs for each entity in regards to how God deals with them. Extreme versions of dispensationalism go so far as to teach many things that apply to Israel do not apply to the Church such as the Law and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. I disagree with these elements of dispensationalism.
My view may sound much more similar to Replacement Theology on the surface, but there are some elements of Replacement Theology that I reject. I have qualified the statement, “The Church is Israel” to being “in Christ.” Obviously, outside of Christ, the two are not identical. Ethnic Israel is not identical to the Church, and I do not believe that the Church has replaced ethnic Israel to the extent that no promises or plans remain for ethnic Israel. Let’s return to Rom. 9-11 to make some further observations.
Rom. 11:11-12 –“ Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!”
Paul makes two significant statements here. First, God has saved the Gentiles for the purpose of making Israel jealous. I can hardly conclude that God has abandoned His plan for Israel if the purpose for saving Gentiles still revolves around Israel. Second, Paul makes mention of their future full inclusion. Because of this verse, along with others in this passage (15, 23-24 31), I believe that there will still be a mass revival of ethnic Jews. Thus, I cannot conclude that God has abandoned His plan to redeem ethnic Israel.
In vss. 17-21, Paul uses the illustration of a tree to represent the family of God. He refers to both Gentile branches and Jewish branches. These branches are certainly distinct as God has dealt with them differently, but the branches are different than the root. Apart from the root, the branches have many distinctions, but once the branches are grafted into the root, those distinctions dissolve, and all that remains is the one family of God.
In conclusion, my position is that ethnic Israel still has a special and even essential place in God’s plan of redemption (replacement theology does not agree with that), but once they are in Christ, there is no difference between them and Gentile believers (dispensational theology does not agree with that). In Christ, the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church.
If you would allow me a question? I have recently been stepping more into distinctions between “dispensational theology,” and “covenant theology.”
My question is this: Is what you are referring to as “replacement theology” the same as “covenant theology?” I have not heard the term “replacement.” If it is not, could you offer some good reading on these views and maybe explain some distinctions between them.
Great question Casey. Covenant Theology is the actual constrasting theological system to Dispensational Theology. Both attempt to offer overarching systems by which we interpret the whole of scripture and explain all of God’s redemptive activity with man. Replacement Theology deals specifically with Israel’s relationship to the Church. Thus, I see it is as a subsect of Covenant Theology. Covenant Theology has alot more to it than simply Israel’s relationship to the Church. I am not sure if every proponent of Covenant Theology must also hold to Replacement, but I am sure that no dispensationalist holds to Replacement as they contradict. Finally, Covenant theologians think that “Replacement Theology” is a negative term used by their dissenters, but essentially that is the case for those who believe that God no longer has a special plan for ethnic Israel.
Thank you. I really enjoyed this article and I look forward to reading more from you.
Some truly nice and utilitarian information on this site, likewise I conceive the design and style holds wonderful features.
I appreciate the biblical analysis of this article and I need to study your conclusions further. This is an issue I’ve been studying alot. I think that the terms are important though. As you allude to, the term “replacement theology” is usually a term used by dispensationalists to denigrate covenant theology. In my opinion, it doesn’t really reflect what most adherents of covenent theology believe. The special place of ethnic Israel (“Israel of the flesh”) wasn’t “replaced” by anything or anyone…….ethnicity just stopped being a factor altogether (Gal 3:6-8, Acts 10, Luke 3:8, Romans 9:8, John 10:16). The believing remnant of Israel (“sprititual Israel”) that Paul talks about in Romans 11 becomes one with the Church (Eph 3:6).
I agree, though, that there are some passages from Paul which seem to point to a future for ethnic Israel. These are passages that I think covenant theologians need to do a better job working through.
This seems difficult to resolve, though, with some of the words of Jesus. You can separate ethnic Israel into two groups……those who accept their Messiah and those who reject Him. Those who accept Him are made one with the Church. Those who reject Him, though, are the subject of some very harsh words from our Saviour (John 8:39, Luke 20:9-18). It doesn’t seem consistant with the words of Jesus to believe that those Jews who reject their Messiah have some future glorious place in the plan of God……Jesus says that they are “of the devil”.
Anyway, thanks for your article.
See my comment above on what I see to be the difference between Replacement and Covenant.
I dont think there is much disagreement here. For the most part, it seems you just restated my points. My central thesis is that there is one covenant community; those whom belong to God via their faith in Christ. In Christ, there are no distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. God does not have a different program of salvation for the Jews. Thus, the Church is Israel.
There are other elements of Dispensational Theology that I reject regarding Israel.
I am not convinced that the land must belong to Israel, and of course, all of the policies that derive from this conviction are questionable in my opinion.
The one key difference between my position and Replacement Theology (again, I dont consider Replacement to be synonymous with Covenant) is that I do believe that ethnic Israel still holds an essential place in God’s plan of redemption. Based on Rom. 11, I believe that Grace was shown to the Gentiles for the purpose of making Israel Jealous (vs. 11). There will be a mass revival of ethnic Jews recieving Christ as their Messiah (vs. 12, 15, 23-24, 31). I also believe that Jesus will not return until ethnic Israel acknowledges him as the Messiah. Really, all of the key events in God’s plan of redemption revolve around ethnic Israel.
The significant point is that ethnic Israel will not become apart of spiritual Israel until they come to faith in Christ, and this is what they must do.
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I think there is much agreement and I did not mean my post as a disputation of your post. I was writing late at night and maybe was trying to clarify my own thoughts on the matter by writing them out.
What I am trying to work through is how it is logically or hermaneutically consistent to say on the one hand that ethnicity is no longer relevant at all (at least in the context of salvation), but also say that God has planned his entire eschatological timeline based on the inevitable salvation of a single ethnic group. It doesn’t seem to fit…..there is a piece to the systematic puzzle that I’m missing.
If I understand your position, you are saying that the only promise to ethnic Israel still left to be fulfilled in the future is a mass conversion of all Jews. I accept this as a legitimate interpretation of Romans 11 …… just not sure I’m comfortable with it in the context of the rest of the New Testament.
Thanks again.
Pingback: America is not Israel | One Theology
I understand your discomfort. Ultimately, I am always going to place a greater emphasis on exegesis of passages, than on harmonizing them with other passages. Certainly, context determines meaning, but when it comes to the greater context of other books or authors, I believe we can be guilty of eisegesis if we read those meanings in.
With that being said, I do believe we need to attempt to harmonize all of scripture, if possible. That is what I have tried to do with this topic. U asked, “how it is logically or hermaneutically consistent to say on the one hand that ethnicity is no longer relevant at all (at least in the context of salvation), but also say that God has planned his entire eschatological timeline based on the inevitable salvation of a single ethnic group.” I agree that no one will be saved bc of their ethnicity. Paul drives this point home earlier in the same letter to the Romans (ch. 2). But in that same letter, he says that a particular ethnic group will be saved through faith in Christ. Apparently, Paul did not consider this to be logically inconsistent, so I do not consider it to be hermeneutically inconsistent. The ethnicity of the Jew will not save them, but it is still relevant to God’s over all redemptive plan. So I would not agree that “ethnicity is no longer relevant at all (at least in the context of salvation).” It is not relevant to personal salvation, but it is relevant to God’s overall redemptive work. B/c personal salvation and God’s overall redemptive work are two different things, I see no contradiction in Paul’s thought. I think Paul’s message to the ethnic Jew is, “You will not be saved bc of your ethnicity, but God intends to finish the work that He began with your people. He will accomplish this by bringing you to faith in Christ.”
Finally, I wouldnt go so far as to say that every single ethnic Jew that is alive on the earth at the time of this revival will be saved. But I do believe that a special work of Grace will be performed amongst ethnic Jews. How many individual salvations will this culminate in? I do not know.