Shalom,
First I must inform, that Replacement Theology is a false doctrine. Why? You are about to know why it is.
When studying the Jewish roots of Christianity, certain questions often arise regarding the nature of the "Church," the nature of "Israel," and the relationship between them.
Do Gentile Christians become "Jewish" on account of their relationship to Jesus?
Does the "Church" somehow replace the Jewish people in God's plan as the "new Israel"?
Exactly how should we understand the relationship between the Church and Israel today?
In general, Christian theology has developed three different interpretative systems that attempt to answer such questions :
1.
Replacement Theology
The Church and Israel refer to the same group of people.
2.
Separation Theology
The Church and Israel refer to different groups of people.
3.
Remnant Theology
The Church and Israel overlap in some manner.
=============================================================
Today, we're going to examine Replacement Theology.
The first theological option regarding the relationship of the Gentile Church and Israel is to claim that the "Church" and "Israel" actually refer to the same group of people.
More specifically, since Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the ekklesia of Jesus is now the recipient of all the covenantal blessings and promises of God. This is the "mainstream" view of most Christian theologians today.
Replacement Theology claims that the Church is a "new and improved" Israel, better than the older tribal "version" revealed in the Old Testament.
In ancient times the "church" (ekklesia, ek- + kaleo, "called out ones") was indeed national Israel, but after Jesus' universal message of love was rejected by the Jews, God transferred all the covenants and promises from them to the Christian Church.
The "New Covenant" given to Israel (Jer. 31:31-37) was therefore fulfilled through the Christian Church.
This view is called "Replacement Theology" because the Christian Church now replaces national Israel as the true ekklesia of God.
The Replacement Theology believers, they always refer to Rom 9:6 as the proof.
Rom 9:6 KJV
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Because of their disobedience (the rejection of the "new covenant" and the rule of Jesus), Israel is no longer a "chosen nation" with any special status or future.
As Martin Luther said, since the Jews rejected Christ, the only thing left to them are the curses found in the Bible, but none of the blessings. Therefore all the promises about Israel being regathered, restored, and delivered from her enemies in a coming Kingdom Age are to be allegorized (and transferred) to the Church.
But Martin Luther forgot about the type of covenant between God and Israel. It is an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:7 KJV
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
And that covenant went through Jacob.
Gen 35:10 KJV
And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
Gen 35:11 KJV
And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Gen 35:12 KJV
And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.
Martin Luther forgot about this. And since Jesus now (symbolically) reigns from the throne of David, the Church's mission is to "usher in" the Kingdom of God upon the earth by means of the worldwide spread of the gospel. At the end of the age, Jesus will return to separate the "sheep from the goats" (Mat 25:32-33) and the eternal kingdom of God will prevail forever.
Please note :
One consequence of this view is that the Church is not essentially new, since it existed before the time of Jesus as the company of saints who trusted in the God of Israel for their salvation (the faithful remnant).
Since the Church is actually a sort of "reformed" or "renewed" Israel, it might be more appropriate to consider this view as "Renewal Theology," because it implies that the Church is a renewed form of faithful Israel.
Paradoxically, this leads to the conclusion that Israel needs to be "grafted back" into the Olive Tree of the Church, rather than understanding that the Gentile Church is composed of "wild olive shoots" that are grafted into the covenants given to Israel (Rom 11:17-23; Eph 2:12).
The Case for Replacement Theology
The case for Replacement Theology is often made along these lines : "Israel" refers to all those who obey the New Covenant of Jesus, who are thereby called the "true children of Abraham" and heirs according to promise (Gal 3:29).
In spiritual terms, the Church is now "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) and is composed of those Jews and Gentiles who are regenerated by means of their faith in Jesus (Mat 3:9, Luk 3:8, Gal 3:6, 9).
National Israel was really just the "seed" of the future Church, which will eventually restore the entire earth under God's forthcoming dominion (Mal 1:11, Rom 4:13).
The Church is now the heir and trustee of God upon the earth (Gal 3:29). Jesus Himself taught that the Jews would lose their spiritual privileges and be replaced by "another people" (Mat 21:43). After the Church came into existence on the Day of Pentecost, God was "finished" with national Israel, and today, a "true Jew" is anyone born of the Spirit, whether he was physically born Jewish or not (Rom 2:28-29). All the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament are now the possession of the Church of Jesus, who now (symbolically) reigns on David's throne (2 Cor 1:20).
In its more outspoken forms, Replacement Theology is aggressive and even dominionist in its outlook, since it alleges that the Church replaces Israel in the sense of overtaking her by spiritual succession (the theological jargon for this is called "supercessionism," , the idea that Israel has been "superseded" by the Church).
Since the Jews are no longer God's chosen people, God does not have any unique future plans for the nation of Israel. The Church, not Israel, is now the "apple of God's eye" (Deu 32:10; Zec 2:8).
In other words, the term "Israel" denotes only those who are Christians, and conversely only Christians are the inheritors of the covenants and blessings given to Abraham and his descendants. In summary, the Church is Israel and Israel (spiritually understood) is the Church.
Advocates of Replacement Theology include the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ECLA), the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), the Episcopal (and Anglican) Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the United Church of Christ, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and of course Islam, which likewise claims that it has "replaced" Israel as God's chosen people on the earth.
Perhaps it should be noted here that some varieties of Jewish theology return the favor of Christian replacement theologies by maintaining that Israel will one day triumph over the Church (understood collectively as "Gentiles," "Christians," or more generally as the idolatrous descendants of Esau).
According to such Jewish eschatology, in the days of the Mashiach the LORD will establish Jerusalem as the central point of the world, and all of the scattered Jewish people will be permanently restored to their ancient Promised Land. All of the literal promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and confirmed by the Jewish prophets will be literally fulfilled. All of the ancient enemies of the Jewish people (including the descendants of Esau) will be vanquished, and Israel will enter a Golden Age of peace upon the earth (this is often summarized by certain orthodox groups such as Chabad with the phrase, "Moshiach Now!").
As we will now see, Replacement Theology draws its theoretical support from the faulty foundation known as Covenant Theology.
The Faulty Foundation: Covenant Theology
Most replacement theologians are also advocates of so-called "Covenant Theology," a rather speculative theological system that posits several overarching "covenants" that God made with "all of creation."
According to this theological system, first there was the "Covenant of Works" in which God promised Adam eternal life if he would obey His commandments. However, since Adam broke the covenant through disobedience, God established the "Covenant of Grace" in which He would graciously save Adam and Eve (and their descendants) from the penalty of death.
The salvation process itself, however, would be based on a foreordained and secret "Covenant of Redemption," in which God the Son agreed to be incarnated as the dying Redeemer of the fallen human race.
All of the biblical covenants -- for example, the covenant made with Abraham, Moses, and King David -- are really "aspects" of the overarching "Covenant of Grace" that God enacted after the fall of mankind.
Covenant Theology is in error for a number of reasons.
First of all, this abstract system of covenants ("Works-Grace-Redemption") is not based on an inductive study of the Scriptures themselves (since they do not mention these covenants), but is determined from (invalid) deductions made from the New Testament which are then "read back" into the language of the Old Testament. As we will see, the primacy given to Gentile theologians who were influenced by Greek philosophy/theology greatly influences the reading of the Old Testament for most of these theologians.
For example, the Torah reveals that the covenant made with Abraham and his descendants is clearly unconditional in nature. The language of the relevant texts is simply unambiguous (see Gen 12:1-7; 13:14-17, 15:1-21; 17:1-27;18:17-19; 22:15-18; 50:24; Exo 2:24; Deu 9:5-6; 4:31; 2 Kings 13:23; Micah 7:18-20).
Moreover, the covenant ritual itself was expressed unilaterally (Gen 15), and subsequent testimony -- even in the New Testament -- corroborates its unconditional nature (see Luk 1:54-5; Luk 1:68-74; Act 3:25-26; Act 13:26-25; Rom 11:1-2; 2 Co. 11:22; Heb 6:13-20, etc.).
However, based on preconceived (a apriori) theological assumptions, the unconditional nature of this covenant is transformed into being a conditional one that now does not mean what the Scriptures plainly state.
Now while it's true that we cannot completely "bracket" our understanding of the New Testament when we are reading the Old, it is a poor exegetical principle not to honestly "listen to the text" of Scripture itself, in light of its historical context, while using the normal rules of grammar ("plain sense").
And it is simply preposterous to take the promises explicitly given to Abraham and to ethnic Israel and reinterpret them as promises given to the Church. In order to rationalize this approach, these theologians, influenced by the Gentile theologians of the past, are forced to use allegory and Greek symbolism in order to apply the terms of the covenant to refer solely to the Church.
Of course this exegetic approach works the other way around, too, as can be seen when the New Testament is forced to read in a way that is not consonant with the plain sense given in the Old Testament. An example of this sort of disingenuous methodology is found in the translation given to the Greek word kai ("and") in Galatians 6:16 ("as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God"), which incidentally is the only place in the entire New Testament where the word Israel is not explicitly used to refer to ethnic Israel.
Covenant theologians conclude that the kai before the term "Israel of God" is best translated "even" (as the NIV translates), however most Greek scholars have noted that this would be an anomalous usage and is without grammatical warrant found in the context itself (the argument against the Judaizers).
Indeed, the plain reading is simply that Paul uses "and" to pronounce a blessing on believing Gentiles and believing Jews in the church, not to equate national Israel with the Church.
Yet another flaw with Covenant Theology is that it is too simplistic. To claim that the covenant made with Abraham is "essentially the same" covenant as that which was made with Moses at Sinai or with King David at Jerusalem is unwarranted reductionism.
These biblical covenants are not progressive revelations of a non-biblical "Covenant of Grace," but are concrete terms of agreement made by the LORD God of Israel Himself with specific individuals. This same sort of reductionism is also revealed in the New Covenant promised to Israel in the days to come (Jer 31:31-37) and of which the Church presently partakes.
Covenant Theology must posit the "Church" as something that predated the coming of Jesus, as being composed of the "elect of God" from all ages and times.
However, Jesus told Peter that upon the rock of his confession he would build His church (Mat 16:18), and Paul spoke distinctly about the "mystery" of the Church in God's prophetic plan for the ages (Eph 3:9; Col 1:26).
Covenant Theology must force the plain reading of the biblical covenants into the mold of its system, rather than letting the texts of Scripture speak for themselves.
Another flaw with Covenant Theology is its use of the allegorical method of interpretation which forces the literal denotation of a term (such as "Israel") to be either not a true denotation or one of a different denotation. In other words, it is the corresponding spiritual reality which is the "real" or ultimate meaning of a term of a given passage, not the grammatical-historical understanding of the term (for more on this, see below).
The misunderstanding of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New covenants inevitably leads Covenant theologians to misunderstand the nature of the Church itself as a mystery "hidden" in the purposes of God but later revealed in the age of the New Testament.
Contrary to their view that the "Church" is the elect of God "from all ages," the New Testament clearly teaches that it began with the ministry of Jesus Himself (Mat 16:18).
Moreover, the Church could not come into existence without Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension (Eph 1:20-23; Col 1:28). Further, the church is composed of those members who have been baptized into the body of Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Acts 1:8; 2:38).
Paul's teaching about the "mystery" of the body of Christ means that it was not revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures (Eph 3:3-6; Col 1:26).
Finally, the New Testament never uses the terms "Israel" and "Church" to refer to the same group of people (1 Cor 10:32; Eph 2:11-16, etc.). Even the "seed of Abraham" is never called "Israel" in Paul's writings to the Galatians. As we will see (below), it is a category mistake to infer that the ekklesia of Jesus is identified with the remnant of Israel.
Most seriously, Covenant Theology insinuates that God changed His mind about national Israel, and that the olam (eternal) nature of His covenantal promises given to them are subject to nullification. But if God changed His mind regarding national Israel, what prevents Him from changing His mind regarding the Church and its future?
The Church must remember that it is graciously grafted into the Olive Tree of Israel and made partakers of the covenants given to Israel.
In fact, the only reference to the New Covenant (brit chadashah) in the entire Old Testament is found in Jeremiah 31:31-37, where it is explicitly stated that the Jewish people will continue to exist as a nation as long as there is a sun and moon seen in the sky! This is further confirmed by Paul's teaching about national Israel found in Romans 9-11.
Replacement theology is a dangerous and false doctrine that has consistently led to antisemitism and false eschatological views. Just as we believe that God will keep His promises to the Church, so we believe He will keep His promises to national Israel - including the future restoration of Israel as the "head of the nations" during the kingdom of God on earth.
When the LORD Jesus comes back to earth, He is heading straight to national Israel, and to Jerusalem in particular. There He will be finally received as Israel's King and Savior and will rule during the millennial kingdom.
The Fourth (i.e., Millennial) Temple will be built (Ezekiel 40-48) and the nations will come to Jerusalem to pay homage to the LORD God of Israel. All the nations will celebrate the feast of Sukkot, and those that refuse will be plagued with drought (Isaiah 4:2-6; Zechariah 14:17-18).
Next we'll be discussing the Separation Theology.
Blessing,
Andre
First I must inform, that Replacement Theology is a false doctrine. Why? You are about to know why it is.
When studying the Jewish roots of Christianity, certain questions often arise regarding the nature of the "Church," the nature of "Israel," and the relationship between them.
Do Gentile Christians become "Jewish" on account of their relationship to Jesus?
Does the "Church" somehow replace the Jewish people in God's plan as the "new Israel"?
Exactly how should we understand the relationship between the Church and Israel today?
In general, Christian theology has developed three different interpretative systems that attempt to answer such questions :
1.
Replacement Theology
The Church and Israel refer to the same group of people.
2.
Separation Theology
The Church and Israel refer to different groups of people.
3.
Remnant Theology
The Church and Israel overlap in some manner.
=============================================================
Today, we're going to examine Replacement Theology.
The first theological option regarding the relationship of the Gentile Church and Israel is to claim that the "Church" and "Israel" actually refer to the same group of people.
More specifically, since Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the ekklesia of Jesus is now the recipient of all the covenantal blessings and promises of God. This is the "mainstream" view of most Christian theologians today.
Replacement Theology claims that the Church is a "new and improved" Israel, better than the older tribal "version" revealed in the Old Testament.
In ancient times the "church" (ekklesia, ek- + kaleo, "called out ones") was indeed national Israel, but after Jesus' universal message of love was rejected by the Jews, God transferred all the covenants and promises from them to the Christian Church.
The "New Covenant" given to Israel (Jer. 31:31-37) was therefore fulfilled through the Christian Church.
This view is called "Replacement Theology" because the Christian Church now replaces national Israel as the true ekklesia of God.
The Replacement Theology believers, they always refer to Rom 9:6 as the proof.
Rom 9:6 KJV
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Because of their disobedience (the rejection of the "new covenant" and the rule of Jesus), Israel is no longer a "chosen nation" with any special status or future.
As Martin Luther said, since the Jews rejected Christ, the only thing left to them are the curses found in the Bible, but none of the blessings. Therefore all the promises about Israel being regathered, restored, and delivered from her enemies in a coming Kingdom Age are to be allegorized (and transferred) to the Church.
But Martin Luther forgot about the type of covenant between God and Israel. It is an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:7 KJV
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
And that covenant went through Jacob.
Gen 35:10 KJV
And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
Gen 35:11 KJV
And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Gen 35:12 KJV
And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.
Martin Luther forgot about this. And since Jesus now (symbolically) reigns from the throne of David, the Church's mission is to "usher in" the Kingdom of God upon the earth by means of the worldwide spread of the gospel. At the end of the age, Jesus will return to separate the "sheep from the goats" (Mat 25:32-33) and the eternal kingdom of God will prevail forever.
Please note :
One consequence of this view is that the Church is not essentially new, since it existed before the time of Jesus as the company of saints who trusted in the God of Israel for their salvation (the faithful remnant).
Since the Church is actually a sort of "reformed" or "renewed" Israel, it might be more appropriate to consider this view as "Renewal Theology," because it implies that the Church is a renewed form of faithful Israel.
Paradoxically, this leads to the conclusion that Israel needs to be "grafted back" into the Olive Tree of the Church, rather than understanding that the Gentile Church is composed of "wild olive shoots" that are grafted into the covenants given to Israel (Rom 11:17-23; Eph 2:12).
The Case for Replacement Theology
The case for Replacement Theology is often made along these lines : "Israel" refers to all those who obey the New Covenant of Jesus, who are thereby called the "true children of Abraham" and heirs according to promise (Gal 3:29).
In spiritual terms, the Church is now "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) and is composed of those Jews and Gentiles who are regenerated by means of their faith in Jesus (Mat 3:9, Luk 3:8, Gal 3:6, 9).
National Israel was really just the "seed" of the future Church, which will eventually restore the entire earth under God's forthcoming dominion (Mal 1:11, Rom 4:13).
The Church is now the heir and trustee of God upon the earth (Gal 3:29). Jesus Himself taught that the Jews would lose their spiritual privileges and be replaced by "another people" (Mat 21:43). After the Church came into existence on the Day of Pentecost, God was "finished" with national Israel, and today, a "true Jew" is anyone born of the Spirit, whether he was physically born Jewish or not (Rom 2:28-29). All the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament are now the possession of the Church of Jesus, who now (symbolically) reigns on David's throne (2 Cor 1:20).
In its more outspoken forms, Replacement Theology is aggressive and even dominionist in its outlook, since it alleges that the Church replaces Israel in the sense of overtaking her by spiritual succession (the theological jargon for this is called "supercessionism," , the idea that Israel has been "superseded" by the Church).
Since the Jews are no longer God's chosen people, God does not have any unique future plans for the nation of Israel. The Church, not Israel, is now the "apple of God's eye" (Deu 32:10; Zec 2:8).
In other words, the term "Israel" denotes only those who are Christians, and conversely only Christians are the inheritors of the covenants and blessings given to Abraham and his descendants. In summary, the Church is Israel and Israel (spiritually understood) is the Church.
Advocates of Replacement Theology include the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ECLA), the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), the Episcopal (and Anglican) Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the United Church of Christ, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and of course Islam, which likewise claims that it has "replaced" Israel as God's chosen people on the earth.
Perhaps it should be noted here that some varieties of Jewish theology return the favor of Christian replacement theologies by maintaining that Israel will one day triumph over the Church (understood collectively as "Gentiles," "Christians," or more generally as the idolatrous descendants of Esau).
According to such Jewish eschatology, in the days of the Mashiach the LORD will establish Jerusalem as the central point of the world, and all of the scattered Jewish people will be permanently restored to their ancient Promised Land. All of the literal promises given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and confirmed by the Jewish prophets will be literally fulfilled. All of the ancient enemies of the Jewish people (including the descendants of Esau) will be vanquished, and Israel will enter a Golden Age of peace upon the earth (this is often summarized by certain orthodox groups such as Chabad with the phrase, "Moshiach Now!").
As we will now see, Replacement Theology draws its theoretical support from the faulty foundation known as Covenant Theology.
The Faulty Foundation: Covenant Theology
Most replacement theologians are also advocates of so-called "Covenant Theology," a rather speculative theological system that posits several overarching "covenants" that God made with "all of creation."
According to this theological system, first there was the "Covenant of Works" in which God promised Adam eternal life if he would obey His commandments. However, since Adam broke the covenant through disobedience, God established the "Covenant of Grace" in which He would graciously save Adam and Eve (and their descendants) from the penalty of death.
The salvation process itself, however, would be based on a foreordained and secret "Covenant of Redemption," in which God the Son agreed to be incarnated as the dying Redeemer of the fallen human race.
All of the biblical covenants -- for example, the covenant made with Abraham, Moses, and King David -- are really "aspects" of the overarching "Covenant of Grace" that God enacted after the fall of mankind.
Covenant Theology is in error for a number of reasons.
First of all, this abstract system of covenants ("Works-Grace-Redemption") is not based on an inductive study of the Scriptures themselves (since they do not mention these covenants), but is determined from (invalid) deductions made from the New Testament which are then "read back" into the language of the Old Testament. As we will see, the primacy given to Gentile theologians who were influenced by Greek philosophy/theology greatly influences the reading of the Old Testament for most of these theologians.
For example, the Torah reveals that the covenant made with Abraham and his descendants is clearly unconditional in nature. The language of the relevant texts is simply unambiguous (see Gen 12:1-7; 13:14-17, 15:1-21; 17:1-27;18:17-19; 22:15-18; 50:24; Exo 2:24; Deu 9:5-6; 4:31; 2 Kings 13:23; Micah 7:18-20).
Moreover, the covenant ritual itself was expressed unilaterally (Gen 15), and subsequent testimony -- even in the New Testament -- corroborates its unconditional nature (see Luk 1:54-5; Luk 1:68-74; Act 3:25-26; Act 13:26-25; Rom 11:1-2; 2 Co. 11:22; Heb 6:13-20, etc.).
However, based on preconceived (a apriori) theological assumptions, the unconditional nature of this covenant is transformed into being a conditional one that now does not mean what the Scriptures plainly state.
Now while it's true that we cannot completely "bracket" our understanding of the New Testament when we are reading the Old, it is a poor exegetical principle not to honestly "listen to the text" of Scripture itself, in light of its historical context, while using the normal rules of grammar ("plain sense").
And it is simply preposterous to take the promises explicitly given to Abraham and to ethnic Israel and reinterpret them as promises given to the Church. In order to rationalize this approach, these theologians, influenced by the Gentile theologians of the past, are forced to use allegory and Greek symbolism in order to apply the terms of the covenant to refer solely to the Church.
Of course this exegetic approach works the other way around, too, as can be seen when the New Testament is forced to read in a way that is not consonant with the plain sense given in the Old Testament. An example of this sort of disingenuous methodology is found in the translation given to the Greek word kai ("and") in Galatians 6:16 ("as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God"), which incidentally is the only place in the entire New Testament where the word Israel is not explicitly used to refer to ethnic Israel.
Covenant theologians conclude that the kai before the term "Israel of God" is best translated "even" (as the NIV translates), however most Greek scholars have noted that this would be an anomalous usage and is without grammatical warrant found in the context itself (the argument against the Judaizers).
Indeed, the plain reading is simply that Paul uses "and" to pronounce a blessing on believing Gentiles and believing Jews in the church, not to equate national Israel with the Church.
Yet another flaw with Covenant Theology is that it is too simplistic. To claim that the covenant made with Abraham is "essentially the same" covenant as that which was made with Moses at Sinai or with King David at Jerusalem is unwarranted reductionism.
These biblical covenants are not progressive revelations of a non-biblical "Covenant of Grace," but are concrete terms of agreement made by the LORD God of Israel Himself with specific individuals. This same sort of reductionism is also revealed in the New Covenant promised to Israel in the days to come (Jer 31:31-37) and of which the Church presently partakes.
Covenant Theology must posit the "Church" as something that predated the coming of Jesus, as being composed of the "elect of God" from all ages and times.
However, Jesus told Peter that upon the rock of his confession he would build His church (Mat 16:18), and Paul spoke distinctly about the "mystery" of the Church in God's prophetic plan for the ages (Eph 3:9; Col 1:26).
Covenant Theology must force the plain reading of the biblical covenants into the mold of its system, rather than letting the texts of Scripture speak for themselves.
Another flaw with Covenant Theology is its use of the allegorical method of interpretation which forces the literal denotation of a term (such as "Israel") to be either not a true denotation or one of a different denotation. In other words, it is the corresponding spiritual reality which is the "real" or ultimate meaning of a term of a given passage, not the grammatical-historical understanding of the term (for more on this, see below).
The misunderstanding of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New covenants inevitably leads Covenant theologians to misunderstand the nature of the Church itself as a mystery "hidden" in the purposes of God but later revealed in the age of the New Testament.
Contrary to their view that the "Church" is the elect of God "from all ages," the New Testament clearly teaches that it began with the ministry of Jesus Himself (Mat 16:18).
Moreover, the Church could not come into existence without Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension (Eph 1:20-23; Col 1:28). Further, the church is composed of those members who have been baptized into the body of Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Acts 1:8; 2:38).
Paul's teaching about the "mystery" of the body of Christ means that it was not revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures (Eph 3:3-6; Col 1:26).
Finally, the New Testament never uses the terms "Israel" and "Church" to refer to the same group of people (1 Cor 10:32; Eph 2:11-16, etc.). Even the "seed of Abraham" is never called "Israel" in Paul's writings to the Galatians. As we will see (below), it is a category mistake to infer that the ekklesia of Jesus is identified with the remnant of Israel.
Most seriously, Covenant Theology insinuates that God changed His mind about national Israel, and that the olam (eternal) nature of His covenantal promises given to them are subject to nullification. But if God changed His mind regarding national Israel, what prevents Him from changing His mind regarding the Church and its future?
The Church must remember that it is graciously grafted into the Olive Tree of Israel and made partakers of the covenants given to Israel.
In fact, the only reference to the New Covenant (brit chadashah) in the entire Old Testament is found in Jeremiah 31:31-37, where it is explicitly stated that the Jewish people will continue to exist as a nation as long as there is a sun and moon seen in the sky! This is further confirmed by Paul's teaching about national Israel found in Romans 9-11.
Replacement theology is a dangerous and false doctrine that has consistently led to antisemitism and false eschatological views. Just as we believe that God will keep His promises to the Church, so we believe He will keep His promises to national Israel - including the future restoration of Israel as the "head of the nations" during the kingdom of God on earth.
When the LORD Jesus comes back to earth, He is heading straight to national Israel, and to Jerusalem in particular. There He will be finally received as Israel's King and Savior and will rule during the millennial kingdom.
The Fourth (i.e., Millennial) Temple will be built (Ezekiel 40-48) and the nations will come to Jerusalem to pay homage to the LORD God of Israel. All the nations will celebrate the feast of Sukkot, and those that refuse will be plagued with drought (Isaiah 4:2-6; Zechariah 14:17-18).
Next we'll be discussing the Separation Theology.
Blessing,
Andre
No comments:
Post a Comment