Ye Chosen Seed of Israel's Race, Part 3: In Defense of Replacement Theology

This is part 3 of a continuing series. To read part 1, click here. For part 2, click here.

If you have followed this series so far, I have labored to show that the New Testament underscores how Jesus the Messiah fulfills and recapitulates in himself the history and identity of Israel. I have also sought to, as carefully as I can, define terms and represent all sides fairly, despite the inadequacies of many popular labels. In this post, I will attempt to make a brief, positive case for "Replacement" Theology. It is a big job to be sure in a blog post, but I am going to give it my best shot.

As I have stated before, this is a very emotionally-laden and charged topic. I am extremely aware of the strong passions that this debate can arouse. My goal is to enlighten and challenge even as I embark on a very difficult task.

My goal here is not to be complicated. To be honest, my case is fairly simple. I will show that, flowing from the truth that Jesus himself is the true Israel, he reconstituted the people of God through his Apostles. In a related vein, I also hope to show that the New Testament deliberately extends to the gentiles the covenant blessings promised to Israel. Lastly, I will briefly consider Galatians 6:16 and whether the "Israel of God" rightly refers to the Church as a whole or not.

As I indicated in part 1 of this series (which you can read by clicking above), Jesus Christ himself is the true Israel. He succeeds in fulfilling the identity and mission of Israel in his life and person where the people of old had failed. In his earthly life, he originated in the Holy Land, went to Egypt, was called out of Egypt, then went through the waters and the desert on His way to the Mountain where the Law was expounded.

But there is another sense in which Jesus shows himself to be the anti-type to Israel; that is in choosing the Apostles. In the Old Testament, the Patriarch Jacob had his name changed to Israel:

That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

(Genesis 32:22-28 NIV)

Israel then went on to have twelve sons (Ephraim and Manasseh were the sons of Joseph which Jacob/Israel adopted; Genesis 48:12-16). These twelve sons went on to become the nucleus of the earthly nation of Israel. So here we see the pattern: Israel has an offspring of twelve men who then proceed to father a nation bearing the name Israel. We find this pattern repeated with Jesus, Israel par excellence. Out of all of his disciples, Jesus chose twelve men whom he designated as "Apostles":

Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

(Mark 3:13-19 NIV)

The choosing of exactly twelve men is not a coincidence (it also explains why Judas Iscariot had to be replaced so as to bring the number of Apostles back from eleven to twelve; Acts 1:12-26). In doing so, Jesus is continuing to recapitulate the history of Israel. He has an "offspring", so to speak, of twelve men who then go on to form the nucleus of a completely renewed and reconstituted Israel, known as the Church (Matthew 16:18). 

But this reconstitution of Israel goes further. So far, we might be led to believe that only Jews partake in these blessings. After all, Jesus did tell his Twelve Apostles, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel..." (Matthew 10:5b-6 NIV). Also, Christianity began as a sect within Judaism. Jesus, the Twelve, and all of the first believers were Jews. Even in including the Samaritans, there was still a common root from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The real surprise of the New Testament was the full inclusion of the gentiles as full partakers of the covenant blessings, without them first converting to Judaism and undergoing circumcision. This was what blew the minds of the early Church. 

But what was so special and surprising about including the gentiles? The Old Testament clearly describes how the coming of the Messiah would bless the gentiles, who would stream to Jerusalem to learn from the God of Israel (Isaiah 2:1-5; 42:4-6; 49:6). So the idea that gentiles would benefit from the coming of the Messiah was not what so surprised the early Church. What so shocked them was the equal footing that the gentiles would now enjoy along with the restored people of Israel! The gentiles would now become a part of Israel no less than Jews. This is seen most clearly in Ephesians 2:11-3:6:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—  remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—

 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

I have to spend some time on this passage, both because of how important it is to my case and because of how it has been abused by those of the Dispensational persuasion. It is ironic that this has become the "go-to" passage by Dispensationalists as if it proves their contention that the Church is somehow this new entity completely distinct from Israel. In reality, this is one of the most damning to their position. The Dispensational perspective basically says that this passage describes a new body of Jews and gentiles that was previously unknown in earlier times, but now revealed to Paul. 

Lewis Sperry Chafer had this to say about the Church and the "mystery": "The word church is not found in the Old Testament because of the fact that the Church did not then exist, and being a mystery or sacred secret of the New Testament (Ephesians 3:3-6), it is not even a subject of Old Testament prophecy."

(Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Major Bible Themes", chapter 35)

This is a half-truth, which is worse than a lie. The true part is that Paul (along with the other Apostles and Prophets; Ephesians 3:5) had received new revelation that was unknown prior to that time. But Dispensationalism assumes that the subject of the mystery is the existence of the Church. But in actuality, the subject of the mystery is the gentiles! It is not the existence of the Church, it is the constituency of the Church! You see, something has shifted in the status of the gentiles in their relationship to the Jews. We know all about God's plans for the Jews from the many Old Testament prophecies concerning them. But whereas before gentiles were completely separated from Israel (see 2:11-12), now because of the Gospel, gentiles are fellow sharers with Israel! Gentiles are now part of the same body as Israel! There is no more distinction - ever again.  And what is it that Israel partakes of that the gentiles now equally share in? In short, the gentiles are now equal sharers WITH Israel of all the wonderful promises that God had made TO Israel! Everything that is promised to Israel - salvation, forgiveness, land, kingdom, et al. - is now the equal possession of gentile Christians. 

With this in mind, it becomes much easier to understand how Paul, in Galatians 6:16, can refer to all believers - Jews and gentiles - as the "Israel of God". This passage has been a source of controversy recently. Does it really refer to the Church? If so, then Dispensationalism (and its derivative theologies) is disproved and shown to be a house of cards. But if it doesn't refer to the Church, then RT is seriously undermined.

While a full exegesis is not possible given space, I will simply point out Paul's entire line of argumentation in his letter to the Galatians (for a more comprehensive defense of my reading of Galatians 6:16, see this article). In the course of defending the Gospel of Justification by Faith Alone, Paul brings over many of the wonderful titles and privileges of Israel of old and applies them equally to the gentiles. He can refer to gentile believers as "Sons of Abraham" (3:7), "heirs according to the promise [made to Abraham]" (3:29), "sons of the free woman [Sarah]" (4:23), "children of promise, like Isaac" (4:28) and citizens of the Heavenly "Jerusalem" (4:26). So how can any believer - Jew or gentile - be a son of Abraham, an heir of Abraham's covenant, likened to Isaac in his birthright, and a citizen of Jerusalem, and not be a part of "Israel"? I don't mean to be rude, but it truly boggles the mind.

Messianic Jewish author Michael L. Brown attempts to get around the force of all these titles by pointing out that the Church is never referred to as "Jacob" in the New Testament. He writes: "But where in the New Testament is the Church ever called Jacob? Yet Jacob was used to refer to the people of Israel in the Old Testament more than 140 times! Would anyone ever think of calling the Church Jacob? NO! That's because the Church is no more the New Israel than it is the New Jacob. For that matter, the Church is not the New Yeshurun either. (Yeshurun was used four times in the Old Testament as a special title for Israel - not the Church as a whole.)"

(Michael L. Brown, Our Hands Are Stained With Blood: The Tragic Story of the "Church" and the Jewish People; page 214, note 3)

In response, I should point out that the New Testament is not pedantic. In other words, it is not as if literally every single name must without exception be explicitly repeated. That would quickly become redundant. The titles used in Galatians above, along with "the circumcision" in Philippians 3:3, the "Twelve Tribes" in James 1:1 (compare with 5:14, in which sick believers call for the elders of the Church), the "dispersion" in 1 Peter 1:1 (Peter's readers are called Christians in 4:16) should be sufficient to prove the point that all believers - Jews and gentiles - are rightly called "Israel". 

These points are really just scratching the surface. This is a massive subject, and one that my small contributions are not going to solve overnight. Nevertheless, it is a topic that I feel very strongly and passionately about. With Dispensationalism and its cousins still maintaining a strong presence is many different contexts, I feel that now is the time to address this issue. 

In my next installment, I will tackle the issue of the Land of Promise that God has sworn to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and how it will be fulfilled. After that, in the following post, I will also address the issue of the ethnic Jewish people. Has God forever cast them off, or do they still hold a vital place in God's plans? 

Are You a "Professional Statesman"?

It probably wouldn't take an astute Christian very long to discover that my theology is pretty comprehensive. I don't mean of course where I stand on those first-order truths of central importance; like the Trinity, Justification by Faith, or the Inerrancy of the Scriptures. On those things I am solidly in line with historic Evangelicalism. I am referring primarily to what are usually considered second-order doctrinal questions. These are those biblical and theological issues on which genuine Christians can and do disagree while still reckoning each other as brethren in the Lord. Examples would include debates over Calvinism/Arminianism or whether certain Gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased or not. Clearly, I have strong beliefs on these and other issues. I consider that all of the Bible is worth reading, pondering, articulating, and defending.

More than being comprehensive, my theology is also very eclectic. In other words, it seems that I have one foot in the door of many differing theological perspectives, but I do not neatly fit into any one denominational/theological tradition. Returning to the examples of the last paragraph, I share some things in common with Reformed Theology, like a belief in TULIP/Calvinism. But I differ with Reformed Theology on key points. Likewise is the Charismatic Movement. Like that tradition, I affirm that all spiritual gifts continue to the present day. I deny any theology that says certain gifts like prophecy, tongues, healing, et al. have ceased. But I part ways with the vast majority of the Charismatic Movement by holding to Calvinism and by my denial that women can be ordained as pastors (among other doctrinal issues).

The problem arises of course when my propensity to hold to and state these beliefs runs headlong into the (post)modern tendency to downplay the importance of these doctrinal questions. Almost always this is done in the interest of Christian unity. If doctrinal disagreements divide (and they do divide), and if Christ prayed for unity (and He did - John 17), then maybe all these secondary doctrinal debates are really just a waste of time and we should re-channel that energy into evangelism or other worthy spiritual pursuits.

Another side to this concern is the very laudable desire to remain humble. Humility is at the center of what it means to be a Christian. If we even want to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, we must begin by recognizing our need; that is, we must be humble before God (Matthew 5:3). We are also told in Scripture that, God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). Humility is a big deal, but in our present cultural milieu, it is believed that the height of arrogance is in having strong theological convictions that would necessarily cause divisions between individuals. Similarly, humility is said to be essentially the absence of conviction and the possession of a nebulous uncertainty.

I disagree. Arrogance does not consist in having beliefs and convictions and by implication asserting that others are wrong in their beliefs and convictions. Nor is real humility found in having more questions than answers. That kind of muddled thinking might gain one cachet in the postmodern Western world, but it shouldn't have any place in the Church.

But there is one other issue related to all of this that I wanted to address in this post. This tendency seems to appear most often on the internet - particularly Facebook and Twitter - but it can be found even in the flesh-and-blood real world we live in. There always seems to be that one person who shows up in the middle of a theological exchange, discussion or debate who chimes in - often without invitation - and expresses the sentiments that I described above. At that point, all other parties involved will generally trip over themselves in verbal agreement while feeling a barely concealed guilt that they ever engaged in the debate in the first place. Such individuals always come out smelling like a rose because they appeared to be most concerned with the unity of the church and with "humility".

But are they really all that humble? True, I cannot probe into the depths of a person's motivations. Human motivation is a complicated subject. But if I am really honest, nine times out of ten, I heavily suspect that the peddlers of "unity" and "humility" are actually engaging in a sort of ecclesiastical power play whereby they are admired and others are shamed. And all of this is done in Jesus' name of course. I dare say that it seems more than just a little pharisaical.

All this reminds me of a quotation that I found from Presbyterian author Carl Trueman. Over the years, I have come to appreciate many of Trueman's cultural and theological insights. In one particularly perceptive piece, Trueman takes direct aim at those who would use false guilt to squelch theological discussion:

"This leads to one other concern about future leadership. It is what I call the emergence of the professional statesman. The professional statesman is the person who thinks and acts as if they can rise above the fray and speak to issues in a way that transcends the typical struggles involved in any leadership situation. I have witnessed this so often over the last few years, both in observing the wider political scene and in the church which seems to me to be increasingly marked by such men: they are those who try to defuse theological conflict by playing the moral equivalence card whereby they argue that the struggle is really petty and personal, a moral conflict between lesser men above which they and they alone can stand and see the way forward. My suspicion is that too often this simply reflects the problematic patterns in wider society: a need to be liked; a need to avoid making divisive decisions; and a desire to have the perks of leadership with none of the responsibilities and pain involved.

The problem is that statesmen are made, not born. They earn the right to be statesmen by fighting the battles and leading from the front. Love him or hate him, only Nixon could go to China, because only Nixon had the track record of toughmindedness with regard to Communism that meant he could make the trip.  Only Mandela could dismantle apartheid and promote reconciliation in South Africa because only he had taken the stand and paid the price which gave him the moral authority necessary.  Too often I suspect that aspiring statesmen in the church are driven more by a need to be liked and to avoid conflict than by a real desire to provide strong leadership; but being a statesman is not a career path; it is something that is earned over many years of making hard decisions, taking unpopular stands, and proving one's mettle under fire. Those who simply arrive on the scene as ready-made statesmen, so to speak, or who have statesman status thrust upon them by others before they have ever had to take a tough position on anything - well, such leaders want to have their cake and eat it: they want influence and respect, but they do not particularly want to earn it." 

If Trueman is right; and I have a strong feeling that he is, then it is likely that many of the calls in the Church for "theological humility" may just be little more than gamesmanship and a pandering to the prevailing spirit of the times. That said though - and despite the legitimacy of debate - it is still necessary that we recognize the genuineness of faith of those who disagree with us over important, yet still secondary issues.

Ye Chosen Seed of Israel's Race, Part 2: "Replacement" Theology? Defining Terms

This is part 2 of a continuing blog series. To read part 1, click here.



There are few theological topics of dispute in recent history that can draw out more acrimony than what I am about to begin writing about. Indeed, it is such that some pretty nasty denunciations can be thrown at those who espouse the theological position that I hold to. I am speaking of course of what is usually referred to as "Replacement" Theology. If you ask many Christians today, "Replacement" Theology is that hateful position that says that God has totally rejected the Jewish people and "replaced" them with the Church - a largely gentile body. According to most today, this doctrine is responsible for most, if not all, of the anti-semitism present in church history and today. Perhaps only Calvinism is equal in the amount of vitriol "Replacement" Theology garners in much of the Evangelical and (especially) Charismatic worlds today.

One might notice that I put the word "replacement" in quotes and put a question mark at the end of the title of this post. This is because defining my terms is going to be tough. To be sure, calling my position "Replacement Theology" is not likely going to win my position much sympathy. After all, if I am going to argue (and I will argue) that God has not in fact rejected the Jewish people and that the Church is more aptly considered a "fulfillment" or a "reconstitution" of Israel, why keep the loaded and pejoratively packed label "Replacement Theology"?

It is a good question to be sure. In all honesty, like just about everyone who espouses my position, I don't much care for the label "Replacement Theology". Others in my theological camp have attempted to give it a more sympathetic moniker. Two of the most prominent are "Fulfillment Theology" and "Supersessionism". By Fulfillment Theology, we mean that the Church "fulfills" the covenants and promises that God had made with Israel of old. The term "Supersessionism" is related to the verb "to supersede", and emphasizes that the Church now supersedes the nation of Israel as God's people just as the New Covenant "supersedes" the Old Covenant.

Both of the above terms are fine with me and much to be preferred over the more popular-level label. But the problem is that both Fulfillment Theology and Supersessionism are much more academic-level and the average person sitting in church every Sunday morning is unlikely to understand what these terms mean. I could try to give it a new name - come up with something on my own - like "Union Theology" or something along those lines to describe my belief that the Church is the "union" of the remnant of Israel and believers among the gentile nations . The problem there of course is related to the problem with Fulfillment Theology; no one is going to know what it means without spending a great deal of time on definitions, clarifications and nuances.

Lastly on this point, there is a real sense in which the Church does in fact "replace" Israel. While I do believe that the Church is more accurately the "fulfillment" and "reconstituting" of Israel, and while I will argue that the Church is the union of Israel and the gentiles into a new body, there is a very real sense in which it is true that the Church does "replace" Israel, just as the High Priesthood of Jesus replaces that of Aaron.

Unfortunately, despite its baggage, it appears that I am stuck with "Replacement Theology". Hereafter, in this and in all subsequent posts in this series, I will abbreviate Replacement Theology as RT, though I may occasionally use Fulfillment Theology and/or Supersessionism interchangeably.

In addition to my own position, the other problem I face is that the opposite position to my own is also difficult to define. The most common name given to the contrary position of RT is "Dispensationalism". Dispensationalism is an entire theological system of interpreting all of the Bible. I won't spend too much time delving into the origins of Dispensationalism. Others have gone into far more depth on its origins. Most trace it to Great Britain and the Plymouth Brethren movement of the early 19th century, led by a man named John Nelson Darby. From there, it began to spread in popularity among American Fundamentalists and Evangelicals partially through C.I. Scofield's study Bible. Theological educational institutions like Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary have been bastions of Dispensationalism throughout their respective histories. It has also been the default position in most Pentecostal denominations (such as the Assemblies of God) and in the Jesus People movement (Calvary Chapel).

Central to Dispensationalism is the distinction that is made between Israel and the Church. Lewis Sperry Chafer writes that: "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly
objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with
heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity...."

(quoted by Charles C. Ryrie in Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded, page 33)

But even here, it is not so simple. Today there are broad, popular-level theological perspectives that are similar in most respects to Dispensationalism, yet will sometimes borrow heavily from non-dispensational perspectives, while also emphasizing political and/or cultural concerns. For example, the Messianic Jewish movement and Christian Zionism distinguish between Israel and the Church, but typically do not hold to the more nuanced positions of Classical Dispensationalism. In fact, my experience has been that there are those who will hold to an Israel/Church distinction who will go out of their way to distance themselves from Dispensationalism. The upshot to that oftentimes is the use of verbal sleight of hand to parry critiques of their particular perspective, simply by asserting their independence of Dispensational theology and their agreement with many criticisms of the same.

Still, for all the differences, the common denominator is the distinction that is made between people of God A (Israel) and people of God B (the Church). To illustrate, the statement of faith for Friends of Israel states: "We believe Israel is distinct from the church and central to God’s plan, past, present, and future. The unfulfilled prophecies given to Israel in the Old Testament will find their literal fulfillment in Israel at a future time"

Similarly, Jews for Jesus, a Messianic Jewish organization (and an otherwise outstanding ministry), writes in their faith statement that: "We believe that Israel exists as a covenant people through whom God continues to accomplish His purposes and that the Church is an elect people in accordance with the New Covenant, comprising both Jews and Gentiles who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer."

Nevertheless, despite the important differences noted above, it would be tedious and redundant to consistently have to differentiate between the various labels I just described. So once again, despite the baggage and inadequacies of the name, I am going to simply lump all those who espouse the Israel/Church dichotomy as adherents to "Dispensationalism", unless a sufficient reason exists to differentiate.

Lastly, before I finish, I do want to reiterate that the vast majority of my theological opponents on this issue are truly Christians. They do love the Lord and his people. Many of them are otherwise sound on a number of other important theological and moral issues. I am happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them where the Gospel is concerned. So please, despite my strong disagreement with Dispensationalism (broadly considered), do not read into it any nastiness or eagerness to pronounce anathema.

Amen