Heirs of Promise

The Church as the New Israel in Romans

P. Chase Sears, Michael F. Bird

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781577996491
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

How did the Apostle Paul view the Church? And where does Israel fit in? How are the promises to Israel fulfilled? In Heirs of Promise, P. Chase Sears discusses this relationship between the Church and Israel, and he explains how that affects our understanding of the Old Testament.Using a biblical-theological approach to the book of Romans, Sears argues that Paul understood the church not as a replacement of Israel, but as the new Israel--the continuation of Israel reconstituted in Christ. And Jesus, as the Son of God, is the true Israel who fulfills all of God's purposes for Israel and creation. Sears shows how the Old Testament promises to Israel are being fulfilled in the Church.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The relationship between the Church and Israel is an intriguing subject and one that has significant implications for how Christians understand the fulfillment of Old Testament promises. This issue is one that even the earliest of Christians wrestled with as Gentiles began to hear and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:1–18). For example, the question arose as to whether Gentiles should be required to adopt Jewish identification markers, including circumcision (Acts 15:1–21). In answering this question, the apostles declared that God has made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. As a result of this declaration, they did not require the Gentiles to become ethnically Jewish in order to join the people of God (Acts 15:7–9). Later, as the early church expanded through the ministry of Paul, the once-predominately Jewish church became overwhelmingly Gentile. This transformation then presented new questions, questions concerning whether God had abandoned the nation of Israel (Rom 9–11).

As such questions surfaced concerning the place of believing Jews and Gentiles in the people of God, the apostles explained this new relationship in light of the fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel (Gal 4:28; 6:15). These promises consist of a new creation (Isa 42:9; 43:18–19; 48:6–7; 65:17; 66:22; cf. Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17), whereby God would deliver his people from exile (Isa 26:19; 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1; Ezek 37:1–4; cf. Rom 10), establishing a new covenant with them (Jer 31:31ff; Ezek 36:22–26; cf. Eph 2:18–22; 2 Cor 3:4–6; Heb 8:1–13) and, thus, fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham that in him all the nations would be blessed (Gen 12:1–3; 15:4–5; 17:1–8; 18:18–19; 22:16–18; cf. Rom 4; Gal 3:1–9).

Though a complicated subject among first-century Christians, the majority of the church throughout history has concluded that the NT teaches that the fulfillment of these OT promises to Israel is to be found in the Church. In the second century, Justin Martyr explained to a Jew named Trypho that Christians are “the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.”1 Augustine held a similar idea, saying, “For if we hold with a firm heart the grace of God which hath been given us, we are Israel, the seed of Abraham.… Let therefore no Christian consider himself alien to the name of Israel.”2 Among the Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, it was also believed that the Church was true Israel.3 This view has even been expressed by modern theologians like Karl Barth, who saw the Church as the successor of Israel.4

However, despite this longstanding history, both dispensational and post-Holocaust theologians have recently challenged the idea that the Church is the new Israel.5 The former maintain that many of the promises made to OT Israel still find their ultimate fulfillment in a future national restoration rather than in the Church.6 The latter oppose the idea that the promises to OT Israel are fulfilled in the Church for fear that such a concession has contributed to anti-Semitism.7 In light of these challenges, it will prove helpful to highlight the key areas of disagreement.

FRAMING THE DEBATE

Among evangelicals, the discussion concerning the relationship between the Church and Israel has primarily concentrated on how the NT explains the fulfillment of OT promises. For instance, do the promises given to OT Israel find their fulfillment in the Church? Or does ethnic Israel retain particular promises distinct from believing Gentiles? How one answers these questions will certainly affect his or her approach to interpreting Scripture.

Dispensationalism

Dispensational theologians have answered these questions in various ways, but all maintain some unique privilege for ethnic Israel in the future. However, it is helpful to be aware of some key differences between dispensationalists. “Classical dispensationalism” is represented by the writings of John Nelson Darby and Lewis Sperry Chafer. At the heart of classical dispensationalism is the notion that God has two distinct redemptive purposes for Israel and the Church. For Israel, God will fulfill his purposes with it as the earthly people of God, whereby it will reign over the Gentiles forever in God’s kingdom on earth. The Church, on the other hand, is the heavenly people, who will dwell forever in God’s kingdom in heaven.8 Consequently, classical dispensationalists believe that the Church and Israel will be eternally separated.

“Revised dispensationalism,” advocated by the likes of Charles Ryrie and John Walvoord, veered away from the eternal dualism between the Church and Israel. However, a sharp distinction between the two was still preserved.9 Revised dispensationalists believe that God is still accomplishing his plan to redeem a people for himself, but the promises of the kingdom in the OT have been put on pause until God’s purposes in the Church are complete. It will be at this time that God will resume his plan with Israel, and it will receive the promised kingdom. Although Israel and the Church will not be eternally separated as earthly people and heavenly people, there will remain a distinction in identity.10

In a third variation, “progressive dispensationalism,” the Church is no longer viewed as a parenthesis in God’s plan. Instead, the Church shares with Israel in God’s kingdom purposes and is a part of the one people of God. However, within the “one” people of God,

Israel retains its Old Testament meaning as an ethnic people throughout the New Testament. Even though the believers in the Church have come to share in the present messianic salvation along with Jews and the Church is now serving God’s kingdom purpose, Israel in its historic meaning will yet fulfill its promised destiny.11

In other words, though the Church is closely related to Israel, progressive dispensationalists still expect the nation of Israel to be restored and to fulfill a future role distinctly privileged over Gentile believers. Supporters of this view include Robert Saucy, Craig Blaising, and Darrell Bock.

Non-Dispensationalism

Non-dispensational theologians see more continuity between the Church and Israel. Through the use of typology, some non-dispensationalists have an almost one-to-one equation between OT Israel and the Church. With this particular approach, “the Church existed in the old dispensation as well as in the new, and was essentially the same in both.”12 Such an articulation of the relationship between the Church and Israel has left non-dispensationalists open to the charge of supersessionism.13 However, some non-dispensationalists have revisited this issue seeking to explain the Bible’s teaching on this matter in a more nuanced way.14 Following this nuanced explanation, the Church is not so much a replacement of Israel as a continuation or expansion of Israel to include the Gentiles. In Christ the division between Jew and Gentile has been removed, thereby bringing believing Gentiles into full membership within the covenant community.

Even with its recognition of greater continuity between Israel and the Church, this view has not precluded some non-dispensationalists from seeing a future salvation for ethnic Israel (Rom 9–11).15 Nevertheless, these non-dispensationalists who advocate a future salvation for Israel do so differently from progressive dispensationalists, who expect Israel to be “restored to a place of prominence among the nations … [with a] rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.”16 This difference brings to light what is really at the heart of the debate. The current discussion is not whether the Church has replaced Israel; non-dispensationalists are not arguing this. Rather, the issue is whether believing Gentiles are on equal footing with believing Jews, receiving all OT promises through faith in Christ17—it is on this point that further dialogue needs to occur.

A BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL APPROACH

To further this conversation, I suggest a biblical-theological approach to the topic of whether or not believing Gentiles are on equal footing with believing Jews. My reason: As theologians have debated the relationship between the Church and Israel, discussions are often conducted within the discipline of systematic theology. By this, I mean an examination of the biblical text from an atemporal perspective, seeking to answer contemporary questions. This method often isolates primary texts in order to make logical and philosophical connections to argue one’s particular theological perspective. Although systematic theology is to be grounded in biblical exegesis, it is difficult—if not impossible—to give a full treatment to the place of each biblical text within its own historical and...