“Replacement Theology”?

[sovereigngrace]

Dispensationalists are quick to speak on behalf of their opponents and slow to listen how their brethren actually understand the whole dynamic between Israel and the Church. They commonly throw the “Replacement Theology” charge at those they disagree with. This is also deemed as ‘supersessionism theology’ (from the Latin supersedere: ‘to be superior to’). Dispensationalists allege that their evangelical opponents believe (1) the Church has replaced ethnic Israel and that (2) God has no further future plans for the nation of Israel. They claim such without any factual or fair basis for doing so.

Dispensationalists create a straw man either through genuine ignorance, because they don’t really get what Covenant Theology teaches, or as a deliberate willful attempt to twist, smear and discredit their brethren who believe that God has only ever had one people from the beginning. Regardless, their charge is a logical fallacy. Despite being robustly challenged and repeatedly corrected, many continue to hurl this depreciatory slur in an attempt to justify their own questionable teaching. It is employed by most to intentionally misrepresent their opponent’s position. When all is said and done, this only serves to expose the weakness of the Dispensational position rather than carry any real, valid or accurate theological credence.

A strawman argument occurs when ‘one misrepresents another’s argument in order to make it easier to discredit it. By exaggerating, distorting, or fabricating someone’s position, it makes it much easier to present your own position as plausible and logical’. But this type of underhand tactic only serves to prevent open, honest, profitable, rational and objective discussion.

Kim Riddlebarger cuts across John MacArthur’s ad-hoc use of this charge, and ably responds: “this is a label slapped on us by those who disagree with our eschatology. But this is not (and never has been) how we identify ourselves.”

Those who believe there has only ever been one spiritual people from the start do not hold to “Replacement Theology,” but rather ‘Remnant Theology’ meaning there is a continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testament. Other terms describe the same reality like ‘Inclusion Theology’ and ‘Expansion Theology’. Some use comparable expressions like ‘Addition Theology’ or ‘Fulfilment Theology’. Some term it ‘Messianic Fulfillment Theology’. They believe the Church is not a replacement of Israel, neither is it a new Israel, but it is an extension and continuation of true faithful Israel. This is supported by the fact that the inception of the new covenant didn’t mark the end of the Abrahamic lineage of faith but rather the enlargement of the same. Romans 11:17 tells us that God has incorporated the Gentiles into the people of God. This integration is clearly not replacement, it is addition. It is a combining of peoples. There is manifestly one unbroken unitary spiritual line of elect from Adam right up until today.

David B. Woods puts it like this: “Israel is renewed in Christ, not replaced by the Church, but expanded to encompass Gentile Christians as co-citizens” (Jews And Gentiles in the Ecclesia: Evaluating the Theory of Intra-Ecclesial Jew Gentile Distinction, p.137).

Under the new covenant, Gentile believers are being integrated into the citizenship of Israel. They are being grafted into the good Israeli olive tree upon salvation. They are being added to the household of Israel through faith in Israel’s Messiah. They are now living stones in the New Testament temple. This renewed and expanded Israel includes countless Gentiles from all the nations of the world. The elect of God has grown from one single small physical nation in the Old Testament to incorporating millions of believers throughout the world today.

Mark S. Kinzer highlights the connection between the Old Testament people of God and those in the New Testament by contending that the Jewish believers serve “the (Gentile) Christian church by linking it to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thereby confirming its identity as a multinational extension of the people of Israel.” (Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People).

This geographical expansion to the nations was not some innovative New Testament revelation but was foretold to Abraham (the father of the faithful) right back in the book of Genesis (12:1-3, 17:3-8, 18:18 and 22:16-18). That revelation is found throughout the Old Testament narrative. Prophet after prophet foreseen this impending global expanse. When we get into the New Testament, we see its maturity and realization. That growth continues until today.

We have to ask the Dispensationalists: who has the New Testament Church supposedly replaced? (1) “Natural Israel”? No, natural Israel is still natural Israel. We natural Gentiles are still natural Gentiles. God’s grace was never experienced on the sole grounds of race. (2) “Spiritual Israel”? Definitely not. After all, we are part of spiritual Israel today. We have not replaced them; we have been integrated into it. We have joined the believing remnant of natural Israel (true Israel) in the spiritual lineage of Abraham “by faith.” The New Testament Church is the historic continuation of the believing element within natural Israel. God has not replaced Israel with the Church, because both entities are broadly synonymous in a spiritual sense and refer to the same unitary people of God – those who believe in both testaments.

So, the New Testament Church has not replaced anybody. “Replacement Theology” is a moot term that Dispensationalists have invented to falsify the position of those who believe God has only ever had one elect people. Dispensationalists invented the phrase as an intended slur against those that believe God’s chosen people are those alone that possess the Spirit of Christ (Old Testament and New Testament). Dispensationalists created this bogus term in an attempt to stem the growing rejection of Dispensationalism. That is why it is used pejoratively. However, this term does not fit. It is inappropriate, offensive and misleading.

Dispensationalists would be better advised to stop hurling this deceptive and illusionary charge against brethren who by conviction oppose the very concept alleged.

Some more extreme elements within Premillennialism have even accused those who believe that the New Testament Church is the sole continuation of the Israel of Israel in the Old Testament as being anti-Semitic. When they hurl such a grave charge, they instantly lose the debate. No one is going to seriously engage with a fellow believer who is determined to deliberately misrepresent and unfairly insult them.

We should remember, the Bible teaches that Jew and Gentile alike who trust Christ are completely equal today, being part of the one unitary trans-national body. The saints in the New Testament are therefore harmoniously connected to the saints in the Old Testament. This is the only people that carry the favor and blessing of the Lord. The term “Replacement Theology” is therefore plainly a misnomer, and should be rejected by all fair-minded Bible-believing students.

Contrary to what Dispensationalists argue, the New Testament Church is not a Gentile organization. The Church is a multi-national spiritual community of believers which embraces all nationalities equally, both Jew and Gentile. Remember, our Savior was Jewish. His mission was focused on “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6 and 15:24). Christ’s first followers were all Jewish. His apostles were all Jewish. The early move of God in the gospels and the book of Acts was among the Jewish people. The New Testament was then written by Jews.

For “Replacement Theology” to be a valid charge against those who believe Christ has only ever had one elect people, Israel would have to be God’s chosen people in their current rebellious state. This is a scriptural impossibility. God's blessings have never been tied to a people of unbelief but rather to a people of faith. So, when we look at both the faithful in the Old and New Testaments we are looking at the same unitary people, only larger in scale.

There is undoubtedly a strong common thread and a unitary bond that ties the elect of God of all time together. They are all born sinners. They are all saved by God’s “grace” through “faith” in Christ and His shed blood at Calvary. Keeping this cohesive feature in mind, we should note the development of this redeemed people of God from a small insignificant people largely within the small nation of natural Israel into a strong global people today from every nation, color and creed on the earth.

R. Scott Clark wrote, “the very category of ‘replacement’ is foreign to Reformed theology because it assumes a dispensational, Israeleo-centric way of thinking. It assumes that the temporary, national people were, in fact, intended to be the permanent arrangement. Such a way of thinking is contrary to the promise in Gen. 3:15. The promise was that there would be a Savior. The national people were only a means to that end, not an end in itself.”

In stark contrast to Bible-believing Amillennialists and Postmillennialists, Dispensationalists preaches separation and division theology. They place a sharp demarcation line between God’s people in the Old Testament and them in the New Testament. This is religious apartheid. This leads to a discontinuity between both testaments rather than a continuation of God’s plan for man. They end up ignoring or rejecting the unifying effect of the cross. The Gospel message that Christ preached and which He bequeathed to His disciples is not just for Israel today. It is for all nations. Dispensationalists fail to see that the Gospel was intended, as Paul testifies in Romans 1:16 “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

Whatever angle you look at Dispensationalism, it contradicts Holy Writ and doesn’t add up.

The real “Replacement Theology” within professing Christendom is actually that of Roman Catholicism, the “Jehovah’s” Witnesses and British-Israelism (Anglo-Israelism). These all believe that the Jews forfeited their covenantal relationship with God by rejecting Christ and that God therefore turned His back completely on the Jews and replaced them with the devotees of each respective group. In the case of British-Israelism, they hold that the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants have literally become physical Israel today. The error of these groups is refuted by repeated Scripture.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

When the "replacement theology" canard is raised I generally point folks here:
https://rscottclark.org/2003/09/the-israel-of-god/ to get everyone on the same page such that fruitful discussion may proceed.

 

[J.L. Allen]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I get this a lot at Moody. Some folks aren’t as bad with it, but if you hold to CT, you will receive the wrath of the diehards. One of my best friends is ethnically Jewish and is Dutch Reformed (adopted by people straight from Holland). People don’t know what to do with him. I’m Jewish on my dad’s side. They get confused with this.

 

[Tom Hart]

@sovereigngrace,

Thanks for this post.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Dispensational "theology" has an agenda which is tied up with justifying the existence of modern-day Israel, which has no relation to Israel of old. The true believers of old Israel were justified by faith in the promised Messiah, just as true believers today. We should be wary of anyone who promotes a "theology" which seeks to separate new and old testament believers in that way.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I agree Alexander

A lot of Christians seem to get confused by what happened with faithful Israel at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. Did this spiritual remnant finally disappear when Christ came on the scene? Or, did it continue, but lose its purpose and identity with the first advent? Was remnant Israel replaced by the New Testament Gentile Church? Was it merged into the New Testament Church or was the New Testament believers merged into faithful Israel?

True Israel did not go away. It recognized Israel’s Messiah and embraced Him as Lord. After the cross, the congregation (or Church or ekklesia) of faithful old covenant Israel became the new covenant congregation (or Church or ekklesia). While overlapping two different eras, it was the exact same developing spiritual organism containing the exact same elect remnant, and more. The New Testament Church grew into a larger broader global entity.

Let us then have no doubt, the faithful remnant of Israel continued. What is more, God remained faithful to His covenantal obligations to Israel during the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant through His preservation of an elect remnant within that overall nation. This was true believing Israel. This was God’s chosen people. God was as bound to them as He was any previous generation of believing Israel.

When Jesus sent the 12 disciples out in Matthew 10:5-6, He declared: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Here we are confronted in the New Testament with the Hebraic shepherd/sheep symbolism. The same germane imagery carries over. This reinforces the continuity of thought, faith, people and God. While the Messiah came to usher in a new economy, nothing changed in regard to the intimacy God shares with His true people. Our Lord’s earthly mission was initially and primarily (but not exclusively) concentrated upon the lost sheep of the house of Israel. His attention and principal mission was to firstly evangelize them before reaching out to the Gentiles. God in His infinite wisdom chose to work through one lone nation before the cross. That was His divine will. We see that in His earthly mission (which was still under the old covenant). Nevertheless, that focus was broadened out after His death to embrace all nations.

As in the Old Testament, there was the sporadic Gentile conversion before the cross. But they were the exception rather than the rule. When a Gentile “woman of Canaan” approached Him in Matthew 15:22-28, He explained: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v24). Not taking no for an answer, she continued to beseech Him for mercy. Finally, in verse 28 Jesus said to the woman, “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

While Dispensationalists are fixated with all things biologically Jewish, they seem blind to the fact that the infant New Testament Church was indeed faithful Israel. Christ’s early followers consisted of the elect remnant of Israel. This was the enlightened congregation of Jewish believers from among wider national Israel. They were the Israeli community who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

This company contained people like Mary and Joseph, John the Baptist and his parents Zechariah and Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna who were waiting faithfully in the temple for Jesus, and early disciples like Peter, James and John. Both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were both believed to be members of the ruling body of the Jews —the Sanhedrin. It also included that Hebrew of the Hebrews the apostle Paul. The fledgling early New Testament Church overwhelmingly consisted of true believing Israelites. This was the ongoing faithful remnant of Israel. Those Jews who rejected Jesus were apostate Israel.

The 12 apostles were Jewish. The New Testament writers were Jewish. The 70 disciples that were sent out to evangelize Israel were likewise. The true Israel of the Old Testament became the nucleus of the new covenant Church. That small faithful band of Israelis that existed after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ became the New Testament Church, and became later known as Christians (Acts 11:26). It was that faithful number who Jesus used to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19).

The 120, who met on the Jewish festival of Pentecost, were of similarly Israeli stock. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost after the Holy Spirit had fell, his audience was devout Jews “out of every nation under heaven” who had gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. That is why he addressed them as “Ye men of Israel” (Acts 2:5). Three thousand of them experience salvation. Not long after that God saved five thousand Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 4:4). Following that, there was “multitudes both of men and women” who “were the more added to the Lord” in Acts 5:14. There was a mighty ingathering of Jews in the early New Testament Church.

There is no doubt that the Jews were Christ’s main focus during our Savior’s earthly ministry. But salvation didn’t stop there. His sheep were not limited to the house of Israel. His heart for Israel did not in any way diminish His intention to reach the Gentile nations with salvation. Jesus said prior to the cross, speaking to His Jewish converts, in John 10:14-16, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

The same shepherd/sheep metaphor that marked the true Israel of God in the Old Testament is continued into the New Testament by Christ to represent God’s ongoing relationship with the trans-national New Testament congregation. This reinforces the Israeli identify of the new covenant people of God and demonstrates the sense of continuity that exists between both covenant eras. Gentiles were now to be corralled into faithful Israel in extraordinary numbers. This was a radical overhaul for even the most open-minded of Christ’s disciples. We saw that in their parochial response to Christ’s kingdom teaching (Acts 1:6) and with their struggle in the book of Acts to come to terms with accommodating Gentiles joining the congregation (ekklesia) on an equal basis to that of Jews.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I agree with a lot of what you say. However I think we should avoid this emphasising the "Jewishness" of the early converts. I think this distorts the picture and allows for the deviant theology we have today. The religion of the Old Testament is not Judaism. Judaism is the traditions of the elders which Christ condemns in the strongest of terms. And it's worth noting that Christ never ascribes to Himself the title "King of the Jews". The early converts were Jews by their being of the kingdom of Judah (or Judea). But Paul was not a Jew in this sense, he was born in Tarsus and was of the tribe of Benjamin and in that verse you alluded to conspicuously does not refer to himself as a Jew.

So we should avoid any suggestion that Christianity "came out of" Judaism or that the only difference between the two religions is the position on Christ (as is maintained by some).

 

[Von]

When the "replacement theology" canard is raised I generally point folks here:
https://rscottclark.org/2003/09/the-israel-of-god/ to get everyone on the same page such that fruitful discussion may proceed.

Do you mean getting dispensationals and the reformed on the same page? Because I struggle to see how the article would do that. in my opinion you already lost them with "It was not, as some might have it, that the timing was off,...".

 

[Von]

An article that did put things in perspective for me - as someone who is attending a dispensational church - UNDERSTANDING DISPENSATIONALISTS

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you mean getting dispensationals and the reformed on the same page? Because I struggle to see how the article would do that. in my opinion you already lost them with "It was not, as some might have it, that the timing was off,...".

The item in question as recommended was in the vein of hoping to move the dispensationalist from the usual canards to an actual understanding of his covenantal interlocutors. One cannot effectively disagree with another unless one is willing to walk in his opponent's shoes a wee bit. The "replacement theology" canard demonstrates ignorance of the covenantal aspects of grafted in theology...not replacement theology. The article goes a long way towards dispelling that error.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I agree with a lot of what you say. However I think we should avoid this emphasising the "Jewishness" of the early converts. I think this distorts the picture and allows for the deviant theology we have today. The religion of the Old Testament is not Judaism. Judaism is the traditions of the elders which Christ condemns in the strongest of terms. And it's worth noting that Christ never ascribes to Himself the title "King of the Jews". The early converts were Jews by their being of the kingdom of Judah (or Judea). But Paul was not a Jew in this sense, he was born in Tarsus and was of the tribe of Benjamin and in that verse you alluded to conspicuously does not refer to himself as a Jew.

So we should avoid any suggestion that Christianity "came out of" Judaism or that the only difference between the two religions is the position on Christ (as is maintained by some).

Thanks for your response. In one sense I believe you are right, in another wrong.

Names evolve over time. I recognize that the title “Jew” in its original and literal sense related exclusively to the offspring of Jacob’s son Judah. The first time we encounter the word in Scripture is 2 Kings 16:6. But the term evolved in Scripture. The name Jew actually was broadened out in scriptural times as a designation to describe the offspring of Abraham. The Holy Spirit uses it as such also. That likely came from every true Israelite aligning themselves with faithful Judah, once Israel apostatized. Paul used the phrases Jew and Greek to indicate Israeli and Gentile. Jew equated in the NT to circumcision (Abraham's progeny).

Paul actually did call himself a Jew:

Act 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

What is more, Revelation 5:5 shows how Christ is “the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David.”

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

The item in question as recommended was in the vein of hoping to move the dispensationalist from the usual canards to an actual understanding of his covenantal interlocutors. One cannot effectively disagree with another unless one is willing to walk in his opponent's shoes a wee bit. The "replacement theology" canard demonstrates ignorance of the covenantal aspects of grafted in theology...not replacement theology. The article goes a long way towards dispelling that error.

My mother is a staunch Calvary Chapel style Dispensationalist. Dr. Clark's article while good, has left me explaining and defending predestination and election more often than not.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My mother is a staunch Calvary Chapel style Dispensationalist. Dr. Clark's article while good, has left me explaining and defending predestination and election more often than not.

In that case, I recommend you review the following on the appropriate specific topics:
https://www.agradio.org/on-the-canons-of-dort

 

[RamistThomist]

Dispensational "theology" has an agenda which is tied up with justifying the existence of modern-day Israel, which has no relation to Israel of old.

Historically, that isn't true. Dispensationalists were around long before 1948 Israel.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

In that case, I recommend you review the following on the appropriate specific topics:
https://www.agradio.org/on-the-canons-of-dort

Thanks for the link! I'll give that a read!

 

[J.L. Allen]

Historically, that isn't true. Dispensationalists were around long before 1948 Israel.

Has that switched post 1948?

 

[alexandermsmith]

Historically, that isn't true. Dispensationalists were around long before 1948 Israel.

That's kinda my point...

 

[RamistThomist]

Has that switched post 1948?

No, but dispensationalism was able to do theology without the state of Israel existing. Which means that Israel doesn't have to currently exist. It just needs to exist right when Antichrist arises for dispensationalism to work.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Dispensationalism accomplished its goal when modern day Israel was founded. Now it's all about maintaining support for it.

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

Dispensationalism accomplished its goal when modern day Israel was founded. Now it's all about maintaining support for it.

Hence why Progressive Dispensationalism became a thing in my opinion

 

[RamistThomist]

Dispensationalism accomplished its goal when modern day Israel was founded. Now it's all about maintaining support for it.

Not entirely. Dispensationalism simply needs to demonstrate that the church and Israel can't coexist at the same time (a fallacious assumption, I grant).

 

[alexandermsmith]

Thanks for your response. In one sense I believe you are right, in another wrong.

Names evolve over time. I recognize that the title “Jew” in its original and literal sense related exclusively to the offspring of Jacob’s son Judah. The first time we encounter the word in Scripture is 2 Kings 16:6. But the term evolved in Scripture. The name Jew actually was broadened out in scriptural times as a designation to describe the offspring of Abraham. The Holy Spirit uses it as such also. That likely came from every true Israelite aligning themselves with faithful Judah, once Israel apostatized. Paul used the phrases Jew and Greek to indicate Israeli and Gentile. Jew equated in the NT to circumcision (Abraham's progeny).

Paul actually did call himself a Jew:

Act 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

What is more, Revelation 5:5 shows how Christ is “the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David.”

Good call on that verse. I would take that as Paul being of the Jewish religion. Ethnically I would still stand by what I said, along with the rest. He was a Hebrew but that's not quite the same thing. I accept that the term became broader over the generations but Paul makes a point of describing himself as a Hebrew rather than a Jew (Philippians 3:5 and 2 Corinthians 11:22). But certainly he was a religious Jew, a zealous one at that.

 

[arapahoepark]

Dispensationalists create a straw man either through genuine ignorance, because they don’t really get what Covenant Theology teaches, or as a deliberate willful attempt to twist, smear and discredit their brethren who believe that God has only ever had one people from the beginning.

I have seen it from both; willful ignorance.

At base, they honestly believe Jews are saved a different way; through all the ceremonial laws. It's no strawman. Logically, it all follows even if they claim it not to be so. Otherwise, their trash arguments couldn't hold. They just do not follow the trail.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Good call on that verse. I would take that as Paul being of the Jewish religion. Ethnically I would still stand by what I said, along with the rest. He was a Hebrew but that's not quite the same thing. I accept that the term became broader over the generations but Paul makes a point of describing himself as a Hebrew rather than a Jew (Philippians 3:5 and 2 Corinthians 11:22). But certainly he was a religious Jew, a zealous one at that.

But one name does not negate another. It is widely accepted in scholarly circles that the term Jew became a general designation for Abraham's offspring. It essentially correlates with the terms ‘Israelite’ and ‘Hebrew’. It was used as the antithesis of a Gentile.

 

[alexandermsmith]

But one name does not negate another. It is widely accepted in scholarly circles that the term Jew became a general designation for Abraham's offspring. It essentially correlates with the terms ‘Israelite’ and ‘Hebrew’. It was used as the antithesis of a Gentile.

Well by the time of Christ there really was only the southern kingdom left who could in any way trace their lineage back to Abraham, so by default that woud be true. However it's technically not true. The Jews did not come out Egypt, Israel came out of Egypt; the Jews did not wander the wilderness, Israel wandered the wilderness; the promises were not given to the Jews, they were given to the seed of Abraham. That is clear in the Bible.

We use "Jew" as a broad term today because it's a convenient shorthand but it's not Biblically precise and it has allowed the development of a theology which unbiblically divides the Old and New Testaments and allows people to go around sayind that the only difference between Christianity and Judaism is Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

I agree Alexander

A lot of Christians seem to get confused by what happened with faithful Israel at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. Did this spiritual remnant finally disappear when Christ came on the scene? Or, did it continue, but lose its purpose and identity with the first advent? Was remnant Israel replaced by the New Testament Gentile Church? Was it merged into the New Testament Church or was the New Testament believers merged into faithful Israel?

True Israel did not go away. It recognized Israel’s Messiah and embraced Him as Lord. After the cross, the congregation (or Church or ekklesia) of faithful old covenant Israel became the new covenant congregation (or Church or ekklesia). While overlapping two different eras, it was the exact same developing spiritual organism containing the exact same elect remnant, and more. The New Testament Church grew into a larger broader global entity.

Let us then have no doubt, the faithful remnant of Israel continued. What is more, God remained faithful to His covenantal obligations to Israel during the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant through His preservation of an elect remnant within that overall nation. This was true believing Israel. This was God’s chosen people. God was as bound to them as He was any previous generation of believing Israel.

When Jesus sent the 12 disciples out in Matthew 10:5-6, He declared: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Here we are confronted in the New Testament with the Hebraic shepherd/sheep symbolism. The same germane imagery carries over. This reinforces the continuity of thought, faith, people and God. While the Messiah came to usher in a new economy, nothing changed in regard to the intimacy God shares with His true people. Our Lord’s earthly mission was initially and primarily (but not exclusively) concentrated upon the lost sheep of the house of Israel. His attention and principal mission was to firstly evangelize them before reaching out to the Gentiles. God in His infinite wisdom chose to work through one lone nation before the cross. That was His divine will. We see that in His earthly mission (which was still under the old covenant). Nevertheless, that focus was broadened out after His death to embrace all nations.

As in the Old Testament, there was the sporadic Gentile conversion before the cross. But they were the exception rather than the rule. When a Gentile “woman of Canaan” approached Him in Matthew 15:22-28, He explained: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v24). Not taking no for an answer, she continued to beseech Him for mercy. Finally, in verse 28 Jesus said to the woman, “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

While Dispensationalists are fixated with all things biologically Jewish, they seem blind to the fact that the infant New Testament Church was indeed faithful Israel. Christ’s early followers consisted of the elect remnant of Israel. This was the enlightened congregation of Jewish believers from among wider national Israel. They were the Israeli community who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

This company contained people like Mary and Joseph, John the Baptist and his parents Zechariah and Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna who were waiting faithfully in the temple for Jesus, and early disciples like Peter, James and John. Both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were both believed to be members of the ruling body of the Jews —the Sanhedrin. It also included that Hebrew of the Hebrews the apostle Paul. The fledgling early New Testament Church overwhelmingly consisted of true believing Israelites. This was the ongoing faithful remnant of Israel. Those Jews who rejected Jesus were apostate Israel.

The 12 apostles were Jewish. The New Testament writers were Jewish. The 70 disciples that were sent out to evangelize Israel were likewise. The true Israel of the Old Testament became the nucleus of the new covenant Church. That small faithful band of Israelis that existed after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ became the New Testament Church, and became later known as Christians (Acts 11:26). It was that faithful number who Jesus used to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19).

The 120, who met on the Jewish festival of Pentecost, were of similarly Israeli stock. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost after the Holy Spirit had fell, his audience was devout Jews “out of every nation under heaven” who had gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. That is why he addressed them as “Ye men of Israel” (Acts 2:5). Three thousand of them experience salvation. Not long after that God saved five thousand Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 4:4). Following that, there was “multitudes both of men and women” who “were the more added to the Lord” in Acts 5:14. There was a mighty ingathering of Jews in the early New Testament Church.

There is no doubt that the Jews were Christ’s main focus during our Savior’s earthly ministry. But salvation didn’t stop there. His sheep were not limited to the house of Israel. His heart for Israel did not in any way diminish His intention to reach the Gentile nations with salvation. Jesus said prior to the cross, speaking to His Jewish converts, in John 10:14-16, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

The same shepherd/sheep metaphor that marked the true Israel of God in the Old Testament is continued into the New Testament by Christ to represent God’s ongoing relationship with the trans-national New Testament congregation. This reinforces the Israeli identify of the new covenant people of God and demonstrates the sense of continuity that exists between both covenant eras. Gentiles were now to be corralled into faithful Israel in extraordinary numbers. This was a radical overhaul for even the most open-minded of Christ’s disciples. We saw that in their parochial response to Christ’s kingdom teaching (Acts 1:6) and with their struggle in the book of Acts to come to terms with accommodating Gentiles joining the congregation (ekklesia) on an equal basis to that of Jews.

Coming out from that Theology myself, I would say that some of their viewpoints are an overreaction towards preterism theology that gets encountered at times, and also that they do see a tension in CT circles between those of us who see no future for national Israel, and those of us who do see some type of future for them in the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Well by the time of Christ there really was only the southern kingdom left who could in any way trace their lineage back to Abraham, so by default that woud be true. However it's technically not true. The Jews did not come out Egypt, Israel came out of Egypt; the Jews did not wander the wilderness, Israel wandered the wilderness; the promises were not given to the Jews, they were given to the seed of Abraham. That is clear in the Bible.

We use "Jew" as a broad term today because it's a convenient shorthand but it's not Biblically precise and it has allowed the development of a theology which unbiblically divides the Old and New Testaments and allows people to go around sayind that the only difference between Christianity and Judaism is Christ.

First, I agree with your concerns with those who suggest Christ is the only difference between Christianity and Judaism. This is not true. He was the central figure of both testaments.

The Scriptures are God revealing Himself to mankind through the communication of knowledge. As we analyze the ancient Hebrew text we see a notable and central theme pointing forward to the coming Messiah. This came in the form of direct prophecies, ceremonial typology and a tapestry of unfolding preparation. The old covenant prophets were preoccupied with Christ’s person, His appearance and His ministry. The Old Testament text gradually and assuredly steered history onward to the fulfillment of every ancient promise.

Throughout the New Testament we repeatedly see it stated that Christ was here to fulfil a foreordained plan. He was indeed a man on a mission. Our Lord’s whole life from the cradle to the cross, and thereafter, was a catalogue of confirmation of Old Testament truth. Jesus continually emphasized the importance of accomplished prophecy, by stating “It is written” or asking “Have ye not read?” He would then follow this preamble with a quote from the Hebrew text in order to explain a truth, reinforce a point or prove a fulfilment.

Jesus famously rebuked the two downcast disciples on the road to Emmaus on resurrection day, stating: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25-26). After this, he began to open their eyes to the meaning of the sacred pages. Luke 24:25 records: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”

His intent was confirming to the letter every demand that was made of Him from the ancient inspired pages. His life was the perfect realization of predicted Old Testament prophecy.

The New Testament writers were equally aware of the importance of Old Testament prophecy and its focus on the life and ministry of Christ. They were always referencing the Hebrew Bible to reinforce the fulfillment of numerous Old Testament Scripture through the life of Jesus.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Well by the time of Christ there really was only the southern kingdom left who could in any way trace their lineage back to Abraham, so by default that woud be true. However it's technically not true. The Jews did not come out Egypt, Israel came out of Egypt; the Jews did not wander the wilderness, Israel wandered the wilderness; the promises were not given to the Jews, they were given to the seed of Abraham. That is clear in the Bible.

We use "Jew" as a broad term today because it's a convenient shorthand but it's not Biblically precise and it has allowed the development of a theology which unbiblically divides the Old and New Testaments and allows people to go around sayind that the only difference between Christianity and Judaism is Christ.

It IS biblical to refer to the 12 tribes as Jews because it progressively took on a broader meaning in Holy Writ. I told you why. The faithful of all Israel coalesced
around the tribe of Judah. This is not a man-made modern-day concept. It didn't merely take on a general meaning after the completion of the NT text. The sacred writers consistently used it to describe the offspring of Abraham throughout the NT.

 

[alexandermsmith]

In your post about the old testament prophecies of Christ? I don't see anything in that post about the word Jew. I just don't accept that the term Jew can be applied to the descendants of Abraham en masse. Modern day Jews do not have an exclusive claim to Abraham or to Israel of old, for a number of reasons. In fact most of them have no claim whatsoever.

If your argument is that at the time of Christ the people to whom Christ came were Jews then fine. Of course He was himself a Jew. But equally what Christ condemned in the Pharisees, the scribes, the lawyers was Judaism, which was a man-made religion that had been grafted on to the teaching of the Scriptures. The faithful amongst the Jewish nation were those who were faithful to the religion of Israel, given by God.

Referring to Israel of old (in the OT) as the "Jewish nation", to people like David as Jewish, to the OT as the "Hebrew Bible" is misleading. There is one faith, there is one election, there is one salvation.

 

[sovereigngrace]

In your post about the old testament prophecies of Christ? I don't see anything in that post about the word Jew. I just don't accept that the term Jew can be applied to the descendants of Abraham en masse. Modern day Jews do not have an exclusive claim to Abraham or to Israel of old, for a number of reasons. In fact most of them have no claim whatsoever.

If your argument is that at the time of Christ the people to whom Christ came were Jews then fine. Of course He was himself a Jew. But equally what Christ condemned in the Pharisees, the scribes, the lawyers was Judaism, which was a man-made religion that had been grafted on to the teaching of the Scriptures. The faithful amongst the Jewish nation were those who were faithful to the religion of Israel, given by God.

Referring to Israel of old (in the OT) as the "Jewish nation", to people like David as Jewish, to the OT as the "Hebrew Bible" is misleading. There is one faith, there is one election, there is one salvation.

My whole thesis was that there is one God, one Gospel, one faith, one election, one salvation and one people of God. Sorry you missed that.

When have I said anything other than "Modern day Jews do not have an exclusive claim to Abraham or to Israel of old"? I am not sure what your issue is.

In one breath you condemn the usage of the term the "Jewish nation" (which I never used) to describe Israel, in the next you employ the term to describe Israel: "the faithful amongst the Jewish nation were those who were faithful to the religion of Israel, given by God."

I am not sure what you are trying to say.