Is the Church the “New Israel”?
by Jeffrey Cockrell
With recent conflict in Israel and the apparent lack of Jews accepting Christ as Messiah, one must wonder if God has rejected Israel. In the Old Testament, Israel is identified as the people of God;[1] and in the New Testament, the church is described as God’s people, which includes Jews and Gentiles.[2] Yet there are many differences of opinion on this controversial subject.
The idea of classifying the church as Israel[3] became well established in the first two hundred years of the church’s history.[4] Michael Vlach offers three factors that led to the acceptance of supersessionism[5] in the early church:[6] (1) the increasing Gentile composition of the early church, (2) the church’s perception of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and 135, and (3) a hermeneutical approach that allowed the church to appropriate Israel’s promises to itself. During the patristic era, the church adopted a moderate view of supersessionism. Vlach writes, “The church believed that the nation Israel had been rejected by God because of its disobedience and rejection of Christ.”[7]
Thus, the purpose of this essay is to examine whether God has rejected Israel. As one reads the Bible he must confront two seemingly conflicting realities: God is faithful to Israel,[8] but Israel as a whole is not responding to the Gospel.[9]
With the Gospel message based on grace, and not race, how are we to understand the church as composed of Jews and Gentiles, while still recognizing the importance of Israel?[10] In this essay, we will offer a general history of the issue, briefly review the various viewpoints, and show that God is still faithful to Israel.
The Development of Replacement Theology
During the Reformation era, supersessionistic ideas seemed to be in a state of flux. Luther’s understanding about Jews and Judaism changed dramatically. At first, he affirmed Israel’s positive future in God’s plan, yet in his later years, Luther offered anti-Semitic expressions. He said that the true Israel was composed of Gentiles who were Christians. Calvin appears to have adopted a moderate form of supersessionism. He believed that the church was the new Israel, but that a future conversion of the Jews would take place. The English Puritans and the Dutch Reformed theologians also adopted the idea of a future salvation of the Jews.
A type of structural supersessionism was advanced by Kant and Schleiermacher. Kant deemphasized the Jewishness of Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures, and Schleiermacher emphasized a Christocentric approach to Christian doctrine, while removing Israelite elements. In contrast, Barth viewed Israel’s role in redemption history as significant. He rejected punitive supersessionism, but adopted the economic supersessionist view, which asserts that Israel’s distinctive function ended with Christ.
Moreover, since the Holocaust and the establishment of the modern state of Israel, supersessionism has become less popular worldwide. In the United States, dispensational theology has promoted nonsupersessionist views in favor of a future restoration of national Israel.
The Basis for Replacement Theology
Replacement theology[11] is based upon three main tenets:[12] (1) the New Testament has interpretive priority over the Old Testament, (2) belief in non-literal fulfillments of OT texts regarding Israel, and (3) belief that national Israel is a type of the NT church.
The supersessionist sees the NT as the lens through which the OT is understood. Thus, OT texts which speak of the restoration of Israel are not viewed as applying to ethnic Israel. Another common interpretative approach of supersessionists is typological interpretation. Here “the OT is viewed as being a Testament of types, pictures, and shadows that gives way to the NT with its superior antitypes.” This approach often results in perceiving Israel as a type of the NT church that is “superseded by the greater reality and antitype—the church.”[13]
Thus, the nonsupersessionistic hermeneutic involves the following: examining the biblical contexts; viewing OT promises to Israel as unconditional; and rejecting the typological connection between Israel and the church, multiple fulfillments and applications of OT promises (one for the church and one for Israel), and a Christocentric view of Scripture that considers the details of prophecy.
I agree that interpreting the OT through the NT is one-dimensional because it ignores the delicate distinctions in the connection between the Old and New Testament, while questioning the reliability of the OT.
Five primary arguments are used to support supersessionism.[14] These are:
(1) National Israel has been permanently rejected as the people of God (Mt. 21:43);
(2) Application of OT language to the church shows that the church is now identified as the new Israel (Gal. 6:16; Rom. 9:6; 2:28-29; 1 Pet. 2:9-10; Gal. 3:7, 29);
(3) Unity of Jews and Gentiles rules out a future role or function for national Israel (Eph. 2:11-22; Rom. 11:17-24);
(4) The church’s relationship to the new covenant indicates that the church alone inherits the OT covenants originally promised to national Israel (Heb. 8:8-13); and
(5) New Testament silence on the restoration of Israel is proof that Israel will not be restored as a nation.
The idea that national Israel has received permanent rejection understands that unity between Jews and Gentiles has become new Israel. Thus, they claim that the new covenant is fulfilled with the church, and the assertion that the New Testament’s silence about a national restoration of Israel is proof for supersessionism.
Opposing Views
Two generally opposing views exist when considering the relationship between Israel and the church. Louis Berkhof and other Reformed theologians understand Israel to be replaced, or swallowed up, by the church.[15] Yet dispensationalists view Israel and the church as having separate and specific identities. Others have adopted moderated views,[16] such as Millard Erickson who says that the church is the new Israel but that national Israel has a bright future.[17] Moreover, Free Will Baptist theologian, F. Leroy Forlines, says, “There is a conjunctive relationship between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church rather than a disjunctive one.”[18]
Differing Perspectives
There are at least four different versions of supersessionism. Punitive supersessionism understands that Israel is punished by God and replaced by the church, because she was disobedient and thus lost the privilege to be the people of God. Economic supersessionism views the church’s replacement of Israel to have been God’s plan from the beginning. Third, structural supersessionism adopts a New Testament priority and ignores the Old. Finally, some supersessionists, whom Vlach identifies as moderate supersessionists, subscribe to the idea of a future significance and salvation for Israel but not a restoration.[19] Theologians who may be considered moderate supersessionists include Tertullian, Aquinas, Calvin, George Eldon Ladd, Millard Erickson, and Wayne Grudem.
An Argument Against the Church Being the “New Israel”
While the dispensationalist would offer additional arguments against the church replacing Israel,[20] several key biblical concepts help us in recognizing the importance of Israel in God’s continuing plan. These are especially evident in Romans 11, in which Paul offers three proofs on why God has not displaced Israel.
First, Paul demonstrates that the remnant is a sign of hope.[21] They are the first fruits of the coming harvest (Rom. 11:12) and symbolize all Israel as an expression of a favorable future.[22] Second, the analogy of the olive tree as a symbol of the relationship between Gentiles and Israel reveals the importance of Israel.[23] The olive tree represents Israel as a whole, while the natural branches are the Jewish believing remnant, and the natural broken branches are the unbelieving Jews. Gentiles who are saved become part of the tree. It is God’s intention to save Israel (Rom. 11:26),[24] and Paul shows that the church has no relationship with God apart from Israel. Third, God’s plan proves that God is faithful, despite Israel’s present rejection of the Gospel.[25] Paul’s negative answer in Rom. 11:1 springs from his faith in the faithfulness of God.[26] God has not given up on Israel. Their present rejection, and the present reception of the Gentiles are part of the sovereign plan to save Israel.[27]
Conclusion
In the church’s early days, conflicts arose within Judaism as the movement of Christ-followers evolved into a rival group that claimed exclusive access to the heritage of Israel. Yet Paul, a Jew who converted to Christianity, warned about Gentile Christians boasting of their supposed special knowledge or status while despising Israel. Paul maintained hope in Israel as there has always been a remnant chosen by grace, which a testament to God’s faithfulness.[28] He saw the privileges of Israel not transferred to Gentiles, but extended to include Gentiles.[29] Instead of replacing Israel, Gentile Christ-followers have joined the community of the people of God ahead of Israel. Paul maintained hope for Israel to respond in faith and prayed that Gentiles develop a greater perception of their connection to Israel.
____________________
[1] Ex. 15:13, 16; Num. 14:8; Deut. 32:9-10; Isa. 62:4; Jer. 12:7-10; Hos. 1:9-10; 2:23. Paul does make a distinction between the remnant of believers and the rest within all Israel in Rom. 11:7, and throughout history God has limited the membership of Israel to a specific group. Noah was selected. Then Shem was selected followed by Abraham and Isaac, who was named Israel. William S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (Library of New Testament Studies 322; ed. Mark Goodacre; London: T & T Clerk, 2006), 123, 138.
[2] Rom. 9:24-26; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13-14.
[3] Modern anti-Jewish attitudes can be traced back to Augustine’s supersession theology. Aurelius Augustine, City of God, 18.46; Barry E. Horner, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged (NAC Studies in Bible and Theology 3; Nashville: B&H, 2007), 4.
[4] Terence L Donaldson, “‘Riches for the Gentiles’ (Rom. 11:12): Israel’s Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 81-98.
[5]The terms replacement theology, supersessionism, fulfillment theology, transference theology and absorptionism all refer to the basic denigration of the Jews. Horner, Future Israel, 3.
[6] Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? A Theological Evaluation (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 28-9.
[7] Ibid, 49.
[8] Ethnic Israel is beloved of God and the recipients of the covenantal love of God (cf. Rom. 11:29). Brendan Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina 6; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1996), 351-52.
[9] In Rom. 4 Paul says Abraham connects all believers (Jews and gentiles) by faith. Yet, Paul explains that while God confines people to the station they have selected, he extends punishment to rebellious Israelites in order to bestow mercy. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 736.
[10] Paul conceives of only one people of God composed of Jew and gentile united in one tree (Rom. 11:16-24).
[11] Replacement theology is perhaps a fairly new term, but it is more descriptive of the issue about the church replacing Israel as the chosen people of God. See Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel?, 9, note 3.
[12] Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel?, 79.
[13] Ibid, 89.
[14] Ibid, 123-36.
[15] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 570-71.
[16] Ladd said the truth was somewhat in the middle of the two extremes. George E. Ladd, “Israel and the Church,” Evangelical Quarterly 36, no. 4 (October-December 1964): 207.
[17] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1053.
[18] F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth: Answering Life’s Inescapable Questions (Nashville: Randall House, 2001), 491.
[19] Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel?, 20.
[20] For instance, Vlach’s list includes: the restoration of the national Israel; the perpetuity of the nation Israel; the OT promises and covenants as belonging to Israel; the doctrine of election is proof that God has a future for Israel; Has the Church Replaced Israel?, 177-201.
[21] Rom. 9:6-29; Rom. 11:1. William S. Campbell, “Church as Israel, People of God” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (eds. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1997), 204-19.
[22] Cf. Num. 15:17-21. The prophets often referred to the remnant: Isa. 1:9; 4:3-4; 6:12-13; 10:21; 26:20; 49:6; 51:1; 65:13-14; Jer. 15:11; 33:25-26; 44:28; Ezk. 14:22; 20; 34-38; 37:21-22; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11-15; Zech. 13:8-9; Mal. 3:16-17.
[23] A.J. Baxter and J.A. Ziesler, “Paul and Arboriculture: Romans 11:17-24,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (June 1985): 25-26.
[24] Wright and others identify “all Israel” as a reference to the elect, whether Jews or gentiles. Yet, in vv. 17-24 ethnic Jews and gentiles are differentiated in the olive tree metaphor, and “all Israel” is comprised of the remnant and the rest in v. 7. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 313; N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 250.
[25] Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification (New Studies in Biblical Theology 9; ed. D. A. Carson; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 2000), 152-54.
[26] Dodd notes that the maxim summed up by Paul was, “God is faithful.” C. H. Dodd, The Epistle to the Romans (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary; Trans. James Moffatt; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1932), 182.
[27] Johannes Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 85, 110.
[28] Rom. 10:21; 11:15, 23. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity, 128.
[29] William S. Campbell, “Divergent Images of Paul and His Mission” in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations. (eds. Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte; Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000), 197.
_______________________________________
About the Author: Dr. Jeff Cockrell serves as pastor of Ahoskie Free Will Baptist Church in Ahoskie, North Carolina. He holds degrees from Liberty University (B.S., M.A.R.), Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (MA), and the University of Wales (PhD). He also serves as an adjunct instructor for several colleges.
October 14, 2014
Great post. One of my biggest problems that I find in evangelical theology is how prior to 1948 (the creation of the current State of Israel) there was much less emphasis put on Israel, but since 1948 emphasis on Israel has been very strong. The current emphasis on the nation of Israel rather than the people of Israel has lead to Evangelicals blindly backing the political interest of the Nation of Israel, rather than seeking to see a remnant of Jews come to Christ through faith. I agree that the OT should stand on its own to a certain degree, but on the other hand we must interpret through the lens of the New Covenant or we will have no chance of understanding Israel now or in the future.
October 15, 2014
Tony, thanks for your comments. God saves all by faith. Yet, we must remember that Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4). Paul’s reference to Christ in 10:6-8 reveals that he is the personification of the law of Deuteronomy 30:11. The view is further supported in 10:2-3 where Paul describes the misguided zeal of many Jews for the Torah, thus in context the goal of the law is to lead to righteousness which is available through Christ. Christ as the end of the law has transformed the law’s servitude from death to life, thus the law directs people to the coming of Christ and to God’s intent to call Jews and Gentiles together in community.
October 15, 2014
This is a very fair, reasonable article explaining what is a valid interpretation of Romans 11. It stands in stark contrast with many that throw around breathless charges of “replacement” and “anti-semitism”. I agree that the focus of Romans 11 is on Gentiles not having a prideful, disdainful view of Israel or the Jewish people.
I think, though, you have to be careful with the metaphors included in the olive tree analogy. I don’t think that the olive tree is symbolic of “Israel as a whole” so much as it is a symbol of God’s covenant people as a whole, a people which exists through all of time, and which even in the Old Testament contained Gentile believers. It is important to note that even the “natural branches” need to grafted back in as well as the “unnatural”. So, it is the identity of the olive tree trunk/root where I disagree. The trunk/root has always stayed the same. That’s why I don’t like the term “replacement”. A giant oak tree doesn’t “replace” the young sapling oak. The oak tree developed from the sapling…..it is neither wholly different nor identically the same.
“Gentiles who are saved become part of the tree.” Yes, but only if it is a tree that is fed by a “Holy Root” (v16). It seems difficult to make that analogy work if the tree is “Israel”.
“The church has no relationship with God apart from Israel”. Yes, but only in as much as those who make up the church have a relationship with Jesus, the “seed” of Abraham. It is also true that Israel has no relationship with God apart from the church, the current expression of God’s covenant people.
There may yet be a revival among ethnic Jews. It would be awesome if it happens. But Romans 11 doesn’t require this to be the case for God to be proven faithful to his promises. The 7000 who didn’t follow Baal (v4) and “some” of Paul’s “fellow countrymen” (v14) serve to leaven the whole lump of dough (v16).
October 18, 2014
Rob,
I appreciate your assessment. I agree that Paul seeks to incorporate Jew and Gentile in one community, including the misguided, those who embrace Israel’s hope in Christ, and those awaiting that hope (Rom. 11:26). Thus, as Paul has shown in chapter 4 and elaborates more fully in chapter 11. He writes in 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” Paul reveals that Abraham is the father of Jewish and Gentile Christ-followers who unites all in the olive tree. Thus, Paul did not envision a detachment between his faith communities and the Jewish community.