Replacing “Replacement theology”: Part 1

Imagine a family vineyard that once thrived under careful tending—rich soil, strong vines, abundant harvests. Over many years the heirs grow careless and rebellious. They ignore the pruning, chase after other interests, let weeds choke the rows, and even sell off parts of the land or let strangers trample it. The vineyard falls into ruin: collapsed fences, broken trellises, barren ground, fruitless vines that look dead. Neighbors write it off. Outsiders say the owner should abandon it forever. Years pass in desolation.

Then the owner returns—not in anger to destroy what remains, but with determined love. He clears the debris, digs out the deep roots of neglect, grafts in new life, rebuilds the fences, and waters what seemed hopeless. Slowly the vines respond. What looked dead begins to bud. In time the vineyard produces again—more abundantly than before—not because the vineyard deserved it, but because the owner never stopped claiming it as his own. And the owner’s name is honored because of the restoration.

That’s like the nation of Israel which has been unfaithful to God for many years.

This post is based on a presentation by Dr Darrell Bock of the Dallas Theological Seminary.

Covenants of promise

The biblical plan for salvation from the Old Testament has two important key elements: Israel and the covenants when considering Israel and the promises of scripture. How that program continues through the rest of scripture and how the nations impact the place of Israel is a much discussed and even debated issue. However, it is the covenants that reveal both the direction of God’s program and the place Israel has in it.

I read these texts with an eye to who they address and contend that the progress of revelation, even as it expands who gets addressed, does not eliminate who was originally addressed when it comes to promise. One of the key points is that the original recipients of promise remain connected to that promise. Ultimately, fulfillment is tied to Jesus. That’s what replacement theology really focuses on. It says that fulfillment comes through Jesus and the only way to get blessing is to be connected to Jesus. If you’re not connected to Jesus, you don’t have access to blessing. And that’s what disqualifies Israel basically through her disobedience. That’s the argument of replacement theology. And the church has become the entity through which God works in replacement of Israel. That is what replacement theology is.

Now they will claim that they are not replacement theologians. They will claim they are fulfillment theologians because they focus on the fulfillment that comes through Jesus. And I’m going to make the point that I don’t have a problem with calling someone a fulfillment theologian. But if we’re going to talk about fulfillment, we’d better talk about what the fulfiller has to say about fulfillment.

I also contend that as Jesus’ career is tied to both comings it means that what He did in His earthly ministry and what He does now does not exhaust what may be coming with Him and who benefits from what remains. It is especially the covenants of promise that show this: The Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants. They are why and how the way God’s promise of grace proceeds.

I’m not going to address the Mosaic covenant because I don’t see that as a covenant of promise. I see that as an administrative covenant related to the people of Israel.

And I’m not going to address what is sometimes called the covenant of works, which some theologians place in the early chapters of Genesis. I don’t think the covenant of works actually exists. I think it’s a manufactured theological covenant that doesn’t have a place in scripture because that covenant is rooted in what I would consider to be the creation mandate of Genesis 1. And that’s not so much a covenant relationship as it is a factor of what it means to be created in the image of God.

It’s important to note how widespread and specific this promise from God is to Israel. It is crucial to see how it is grounded in God’s character and so is in place for perpetuity (forever).

The promise of a people and a land involves commitments God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3NIV (the Abrahamic covenant). The issue of the land leads off this promise in verse one. It says, “The Lord had said to Abram, ‘Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you’”. The people of Israel are going to exemplify divine blessing. In verse two, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great and you will be a blessing”. It means you will exemplify divine blessing. You will be a testimony to divine blessing. That is part of what makes their testimony a lasting one. They function as a people as a witness to God. It’s the nature of what Israel was called to be. That witness is not just seen in the person of Messiah. Israel is distinguished from the nations within this promise in verse three, which says “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”. So blessing to the world is going to come through them and the seed [descendants] of Abraham. Genesis 12:7 speaks of this promise as being for Abraham’s descendants or seed. That verse reads, “To your offspring I will give this land.” In Genesis 13:15-16, the seed promise is repeated: “All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever.”

What does the term seed mean in this context? “I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted” (Gen 13:16). So the point here is seed is like the dust of the earth. There’s more than one piece of dust on the earth. It’s also compared to the stars in the sky. There’s more than one star in the sky. It also gets compared to the sand on the seashore.  And there’s more than one grain of sand on a beach. So this shows the corporate nature of this promise. In fact, I’d argue that part of the story of the Torah, particularly in Genesis to Exodus, is to show the emergence of this people of God and the multiple seed of Abraham. In fact, in Genesis, it says not every seed of Abraham is what we’re talking about here because there’s a distinguishing between seed that Abraham produced that didn’t involve Sarah. So, the seed of Abraham here is clearly a corporate plural.

In the New Testament, the seed is seen as Jesus the Christ, Jesus the Messiah (Gal. 3:16). He is seed par excellence as the executor of this promise. But Israel as a people among the nations is addressed and still remains as a part of that promise. That’s a premise that I’m going to prove to you that even though Jesus is the seed par excellence because Jesus accomplishes for God what Israel failed to accomplish as a witness.

The promise for Israel includes the land

My first point is that the promise for Israel includes the land. So when we’re talking about Israel and the promise of God, the idea of Israel having a place in a land is a part of that promise. The promise is reiterated to the patriarchs of Israel in numerous places with the land for her being specifically mentioned. Land is specifically mentioned in the reaffirmation of the promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:5-7, Genesis 15:18-21, and Genesis 17:1-8. It’s reaffirmed to Isaac in Genesis 26:2-5 and to Jacob in Genesis 28:3-4 and 28:13 and 15. So one can conclude that the promise of blessing as a people involves the inclusion of the land for them that ultimately will be at peace among all the nations. Part of what we’re headed towards is the hope that Israel can live at peace in the world with the nations surrounding her. The goal of deliverance is peace or shalom.

The book of Genesis ends with a promise about this land, “But God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Gen. 50:24). And I’m highlighting the idea that it’s God’s oath because that commits God’s character, His truthfulness, and His integrity to the promise that has been given to Israel. That’s going to be very important for what I’m going to say. This is a promise of a land for a specific nation of people. This promise is about God keeping His word and His faithfulness.

The idea of a people and a land is not limited to the book of Genesis. The Lord says to Moses in Exodus 6:4, “I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they resided as foreigners”. Later in verse eight of the same chapter, “And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord”. This remark is a complete promise from God about the covenant’s inclusion of a land for this people as a core part of its content. When the point is made about a possession, there is no indication that that possession is temporary. Nor is there an indication that the promise of the land is conditional. Now, some argue that this promise of the land is conditional and that disobedience means the loss of the land. That claim needs a closer look to see if it’s so. And I’m going to challenge that premise. The first hint of an answer is in Deuteronomy 28:62 where the remark appears, “You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord your God”. There’s an allusion back to the promise of Abraham’s seed. And disobedience leads to severe judgment and it is devastating, but it is not the last word.

This judgment includes uprooting from the land and scattering among the nations (Dt. 28:63-63). Think of the exile. And yet Deuteronomy 30 speaks of a reversal of all this horrible judgment as the Lord has pity on Israel as she turns back to God. Then the Lord brings them back to land into blessing (change :1-4). In verse five, this blessing means more blessing beyond what their ancestors received. The section ends with a call to the nation to obey with the note that disobedience means severe destruction, but repentance brings restoration (Dt. 30:11-20). God never gives up on restoring Israel, even when her back is turned to Him. Deuteronomy 32 even has a song of Moses to commemorate all of this. A blessing on each of the 12 tribes follows in Deuteronomy 33. Nothing in this suggests the door is closed to Israel permanently, nor that the land will not be theirs at some time of the future. What is needed when the land is lost is a turning back to God. The pattern was seen within the Old Testament when Assyria and Babylon overran the land with the prophets explaining what had taken place.

There is a similar cycle to this noted in Ezekiel 20. So it doesn’t matter where you are in the Hebrew scriptures this pattern comes up: disobedience, then judgment, followed by restoration. For example, “I will accept you as fragrant incense when I bring you out from the nations and gather you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will be proved holy through you in the sight of the nations. Then you will know that I am the Lord, when I bring you into the land of Israel, the land I had sworn with uplifted hand to give to your ancestors” (Ezekiel 20:41-42). The picture of God’s faithfulness to Israel in the midst of unfaithfulness is also the picture of the prophet Hosea.

It is God’s grace and the commitment of His word that is central to understanding how the covenants impact the role of Israel in scripture. Two things are of note here. First, this is a promise of Israel’s fate as she exists among the nations. The picture prevents a reading that simply absorbs Israel into the nations or transferring these references to the church. Second, the original covenant promise to Abraham is the basis for the action. God keeps His word. It’s rooted in His oath. Isaiah 2:1-4 speaks of all the nations streaming to Jerusalem in a time of peace. That’s looking to the future. Isaiah 2:2-3 reads, “In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.’ The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” This shows Jerusalem being in the middle of a time in which Israel and the nations are reconciled. Nations disputes will be judged by the Lord there. This foresees Israel at peace in her land in the midst of the nations. Those nations are also at peace with her and with God.

Isaiah 19:23-25 picks up this image and sees a highway running from Egypt to Assyria that also includes participation by Israel. All three will worship God together on this earth. Nations and people are united, yet each with their own identity as well. Isaiah 19:25 reads, “The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.’” Each nation gets a connection to God that is directly expressed in the text. And what’s interesting about this text is Egypt and Assyria at the time when Isaiah was writing were enemies of Israel. All are blessed by the Lord. Egypt as my people, Assyria as the work of God’s hand, and Israel as God’s special possession. This act of reconciliation is not a nationalism but a building block to final shalom on earth. It does foresee a people of God made up of many nations as one of the impacts of Christ’s coming.

So the land is a part of what the commitment to Israel involves and it involves many nations and disobedience does not disqualify Israel from the promise.

What the Fulfiller has to say about Israel

My second pint is that if we’re going to talk about fulfillment coming in Christ, then we’d better pay attention to what the fulfiller has to say about where Israel sits in the plan of God. The New Testament supports this multinational idea including Israel. In Acts 3:18-22, Peter speaks of the restoration to come when Jesus returns. He says that heaven must hold the Messiah until the time of restoration comes. And then he goes on to say, if you want to understand what that restoration involves, read your Old Testament prophets. The Hebrew scriptures promised hope for the nation of Israel and her deliverance. Acts 3:21-22 links the future hope taught by the prophets to the second coming of Christ.

There are three key texts that use the word “until” in the New Testament. And you don’t talk about something being until something if something that is permanent happens before you get to the until.

First, In Acts 3 heaven must receive the Lord until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through His holy prophets. If you want to know what is to come, just look back at the holy prophets and what they have to say, and they’re telling you what is to come. There’s no indication that I’m supposed to read that any differently than what the language suggests in those texts. Moses said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him” (Dt. 18:15). That’s an illusion to Jesus. And you must obey Him in everything that He tells you. So I want to obey what the fulfiller has to say about these kinds of things. Does Jesus’s coming and Israel’s lack of response to Him change any of this? No. Despite current rejection, the New Testament looks to a day when Israel will turn and enter into blessing again. Something Paul refers to in Romans 11:17-21. When he foresees the natural branches being grafted back into the tree after having been pruned away (see Appendix).

Jesus’s coming brings in the other two covenants of promise. The Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7 looks to a dynasty in the house of Israel in the house of David that culminates in a decisive faithful delivering line in a time of peace for Israel in the land. The key point of this promise is in 2 Samuel 7:10-11 which again underlines the key point, “And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders[a] over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies. “‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you”. That line culminates eventually as you move through the Hebrew scripture in the hope of a Messiah coming out of the Davidic house.

Second, in Luke 13:34-35 Jesus is speaking to Israel because they’ve been rejecting Him as Messiah, “your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’”. It is also repeated in Matthew 23:37-39. There is no need for an “until” if the judgment is permanent. So Jesus must be holding out for a day when Israel responds to the Messiah God has sent.

Third, Luke 21:23-24 speaks of Jerusalem being trampled down until the days of Gentiles are fulfilled. The contrast to Gentiles and the nations in scripture is Jews and Israel. A day where they are re-engaged must be coming. So this text foresees a time when Israel comes back into the picture. Something the disciples understood when they asked Jesus after 40 days with Him after His resurrection and before His ascension if this is the time He was restoring the kingdom to Israel. They assumed by what they had heard from the Hebrew scriptures that Jesus had taught them that Israel had not dropped out of the program. And nothing Jesus said in response to that question challenge the premise that God would bring back Israel into the picture of deliverance. Jesus doesn’t answer and say, “Oh, you’ve got the premise wrong.” No. What happens is that He says it’s not for you to know of the times and the seasons set by the father. Which sounds to me like the premise is being accepted. But He’s also saying to them, it’s none of your business what the details are. You just need to know it’s going to happen. They assumed by what they had heard Israel had not dropped out of the program. And nothing Jesus said in response challenged the premise that God would bring Israel back into the picture of deliverance. Yes, the promise is fulfilled in Jesus as the fulfiller. Yes, Gentiles are now equal heirs of the promise. But Gentile inclusion does not mean Israelite exclusion.

Gentile inclusion does not mean Israelite exclusion

That’s an important sentence. The original recipients remain in view as God moves His program to its ultimate realization. Who tells me this? Jesus tells me so. Jesus the fulfiller says as much. The Hebrew scripture says the same thing. Even in a period of Israel’s unfaithfulness, a hope appears in the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. So remember I talked about three covenants of promise. The Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant which talks about the Davidic line which will eventually deliver peace, and now the new covenant which talks about the forgiveness of sins and writing the law on the heart. This text is said to specifically be for Israel and Judah. The promise’s original audience could not be more specific with the addition of Judah. This is to the people of Israel. That others will come to participate in this does not mean Israel is excluded from the hope it represents for her. It is a covenant not like the old covenant. Verse 32 is an illusion to Sinai made with the ancestors that shows the difference between this line of promise and the Mosaic covenant. Here is that promise in verse 33, “This is the [new] covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time [after disobeying the first covenant],” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people”. This is the promise of restoration in the face of disobedience. Jeremiah is writing when Israel is being disobedient. The gospel of Jesus who fulfills this promise includes this dimension for Israel and the Jews. It does require a response from her about Jesus as her promised Messiah. But a role for Israel also is a part. The only way you get into blessing is through Jesus. But a role for Israel is also a part of what God has committed himself to do. There’s coming a time when God will have this happen.

So, how does the law fit into this distinction? The role of the law is to be a guardian to the promise (Gal. 3:24). These covenants of promise are a part of the law and the prophets. The promise was embedded in the law. So, one can read the law as the 613 stipulations of the Torah, or one can read the law in light of the promise that is unfolding that God is also delivering as He talks about the law. The New Testament often reads the law in light of promise. Still, the law has a role in guiding us as Romans 15:4 contends. “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope”. In other words, the law is not ultimately to be seen as stipulations, nor does one wrestle with any tripartite division in the law. That’s an illusion to the idea of the law being divided into promise and covenant and ceremonial law and civil law. So I’m not talking about the law in that way, but as seen as the preparation for and directed towards the promise. When the law is seen in this light, the law is offering a promise about how God’s going to bless Israel on the one hand and how God’s going to bless the nations on the other. Showing the need for a deliverer since we fail when we seek to keep the law. For everyone falls short of keeping the law. The law does set a tone for the pursuit of righteousness and a manner of living that is distinct. But its core goal is to point to the need for a deliverer, calling for a response to that need. Romans 7:4-6 says it this way, “So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code”. Paul is saying that the realization of the new covenant is found here. The Spirit writing the law on the heart or as Ezekiel says it, the idea that repentance washes us clean and the Spirit of God is put in us. Romans 8 is about how the Spirit allows us to do what the law sought for us to do. Paul is saying the realization of the new covenant is found here. For as Jeremiah said, the new covenant is not like the one made at Sinai. It works from the heart out versus from just the outside.

So, where does that leave Israel today? And Israel in mass who have not been responsive to the gospel. Israel today is not in obedience to God when it comes to covenant promise and responding to the Christ. However, that does not mean the nation has no right to the land or a place in the Middle East. As the above texts abundantly indicate, God’s promise is not negated by disobedience because there’s anticipated a time in which Israel will respond in obedience and to use the language of Romans 9 to 11, especially Romans 11, be grafted back in; all the eschatological promises of deliverance in the Hebrew scripture assume Israel is in the land in the midst of gentile nations.

Isaiah 19 could not make that any clearer when it refers to Israel, Egypt, and Assyria. The promise of Christ’s blessings and promises extending to others does not mean the original recipients cease to be in view. Especially when the promise of the land specifically for her is said to be forever and ever. Genesis 13:15, Exodus 32:13, Ezra 9:12, Jeremiah 33:11, Ezekiel 37:25, all speak about this promise being forever. Some of these promises come from Jeremiah and Ezekiel to a people who are also in disobedience. So these promises that imply a nation state do apply to Israel. The significance of the land is not so much or even only about prophecy. It is not only a geopolitical issue only to be seen through the eyes of justice and mercy which is the way it often gets discussed today. It is rooted in the character and promise of God to the people through whom He initially chose to show His grace and who He is not given up on in order to show His grace. God keeps His promises.

Fulfillment theology

Replacement theology does not adequately deal with these texts about promises made to Israel and the hope for her shalom (peace). It needs to be replaced by a theology of fulfillment that allows God’s commitment in all these texts to speak. Such a fulfillment theology needs to recognize Jesus as the fulfiller who looked forward to a day with the hope that at some point Israel will say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Response, by Dr. Brian Rosner

Daryl’s made the case that the covenants of promise, the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:15:17), the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7) and the new covenant (Jer. 33), when they’re fulfilled in the New Testament, it’s not that God has left Israel and Jewish people behind.

I’m going to look at two questions.

Question 1. When Paul mentions Israel in his letters, does he mean Jews or is he referring to the church consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles? It’s the question of replacement theology. Has the church replaced Israel as the people of God?

Answer. The objection to replacing replacement theology is that the “seed” aspect of the Abrahamic covenant has been modified such that Israel now means the church. Now, it’s certainly clear that when Paul teaches about Abraham’s faith and the Abrahamic covenant that Gentiles share in the spiritual blessings and inheritance of that covenant. They’re grafted into the vine as Paul puts it in Romans 11. Paul calls Abraham the father of all who believe, “Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). And, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). And in Romans 9:6-7, Paul states that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children”. So the question I’m asking is, does this mean that for Paul, Jews or Israel no longer have a special place in God’s plan any different than Gentiles? One way to ask the question is, when Paul mentioned Israel in his letters, is he referring to the church consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles? Has the church replaced Israel?

Paul uses the word “Israel” 17 times in his letters and in 15 of them it’s very clear he’s talking about national Israel, ethnic Israel, Jews. He talks about the people of Israel in Romans 9:4. In Romans 10:19 he said “did Israel not understand? First, Moses says …”. So, right through his letters, especially in Romans 9-11, Israel means Israel. Yes, it’s very clear.

There are only two passages where that’s disputed (Gal. 6:16; Rom. 11:26). But they’re very important ones because they talk about a future for Israel in a sense. So has the church replaced Israel? Galatians 6:15-16 says, “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God”. In this translation, “Israel” means Jewish and Gentile believers in the Messiah. But NET translation says, “And all who will behave in accordance with this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on the Israel of God”. It’s translation note says, “The word “and” (καί) can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It could be rendered as “also” which would indicate that two distinct groups are in view, namely “all who will behave in accordance with this rule” and “the Israel of God.”. Or (2) it could be rendered “even,” which would indicate that “all who behave in accordance with this rule” are “the Israel of God.” In other words, in this latter view, “even” = “that is.”. The NET is an example of (1) and the NIV is an example of (2). Because of this ambiguity, Galatians 6:16 can’t be a proof text for replacement theology.

Romans 11:25-27 says, “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

What does “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26) mean? Some claim “all Israel” means “spiritual Israel”, the total number to be saved, both Jews and Gentiles. But this is not consistent with the context of this verse. In chapters 9 and 10, “Israel” means the people of Israel. Romans 11:7 is about the people of Israel. Then Paul described the spiritual blindness of the majority of the Jews (11:7-10) and how this led to salvation being offered to the Gentiles (in the church age). Then he used the illustration of an olive tree to say that the Jews will come into blessing when “they do not persist in unbelief” (Rom. 11:23). This was a new revelation (a mystery) that God would temporarily set aside Israel as a nation so that Jews and Gentiles could be incorporated into the church. In Romans 11:25 “Israel” means the Jews that were spiritually blind from the time of Isaiah until the present. And Israel will be restored as a nation after the time of Gentile salvation when the Lord raptures His church to heaven. At the second advent of Christ the restored Jewish nation will be delivered into to the millennial kingdom as described in Isaiah 59:20-21 (Rom. 11:26-27). As it is clear from the context that “Israel” means Jewish people, Romans 11:26 can’t be a proof text for replacement theology.

By the way, the term “all Israel” probably doesn’t mean every single Jew on the face of the earth. We know that because “all Israel” is used in several passages in the Old Testament to mean a representative summary of the people of Israel. For example, Joshua 7:25, and 2 Samuel 16:22 use that phrase.

So, putting the pieces together, we can say that all Israel refers to ethnic Israel. A future salvation is promised for them, which will become a reality when Jesus returns. So in both letters (Galatians and Romans), Israel refers neither to Jewish Christians nor to the church as a whole, but rather to the Jewish people whom Paul calls my people, according to the flesh. And Paul’s ultimate vision is of divine mercy coming to Israel at the end of time.

So, in Paul’s letters the word “Israel” means ethnic Israel. The church does not replace Israel in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The promise that all the peoples of the earth will be blessed in you, that certainly belongs to Gentiles. But it doesn’t erase Jewish identity for those who believe in the Jewish Messiah. So really what we’re saying is that there are three big promises in the Abrahamic covenant. We’ve dealt with one seed. And Daryl also mentioned the land promise. And the promised blessing has also been mentioned in this article.

Question 2. Does Paul distinguish between Jewish believers and Gentile believers when it comes to how they relate to Torah (the law of Moses)? If replacement theology means Jewish cultural identity is no longer relevant, it’s been erased effectively, then may Jewish believers relate to Torah in a different way at all?

Answer. I want to think about an implication of replacement theology. Namely, that Paul doesn’t distinguish between Jewish and Gentile believers when it comes to how they relate to Torah.

I’ll play devil’s advocate first and then I’ll tell you how I understand this matter. In Galatians 3:28, Paul says, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. It sounds like he’s cancelled any kind of Jewish identity because we’re all one in Christ Jesus. That’s what it sounds like. And he also says in Romans 6:14 that we’re not under the law. This could mean under the law’s condemnation or under the law’s dominion.

Does Paul think that there’s any sense in which Jewish believers in the Messiah can continue with some kind of Jewish cultural expression? That’s really what we’re asking.

I think he addresses this in Romans 14: 1 – 15:6 where he deals with a dispute between two of the groups in the Roman house churches. The dispute is about Jewish diet and calendar, which is observance of certain laws from Torah, from the law of Moses. And he says, “While one group championing Christian freedom, as they see it, holds that believers in Christ may eat anything (Rom. 14:2), another group observed the kosher laws and observe the Sabbath”. Interestingly, Paul does allow for the expression of Jewish cultural identity and tradition. He allows Jewish believers in Christ, to live under the law’s direction, but not under the law’s dominion. Being under the law’s dominion will lead to our condemnation because that’s clear in many parts of Paul’s letters. But he does say in this case that it’s fine for Jewish believers to live under the law’s direction. Paul says, “One person considers one day more sacred than another, another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5).

Paul allows for some disputes about how to live as a Christian. So not all things are high moral ground issues. Some things are on the slopes of different cultural backgrounds and sometimes the valley of personal choice just to give you a full topography of Christian ethics there.

“Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. (Rom. 14:6-8). Did you notice that beautiful little expression to the Lord and for the Lord?

Sometimes we say that we’re so individualistic in the West and the first century Christians were much more communal. There’s is a lot of truth to that. But in this case, Paul’s very clear that individual conscience is very important. Paul does address whole groups and churches. But in this case, he’s saying it’s absolutely fine if someone holds Jewish scruples based on the law’s direction.

So, what do we make of there’s neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female. We’re all one in Christ Jesus. Well, I think we’ve got to be careful here. And I think what Paul is affirming is our unity in Christ. But just as our unity in Christ doesn’t obliterate our male and femaleness, it doesn’t necessarily obliterate our Jewish or Gentile identity. So, who am I? You might answer the question, I’m a Jew. I’m a Gentile. I’m a certain age. I have a certain occupation. I have a certain marital status and so on. Now, all of those things make up my identity. They’re all in one sense important, but none of them is all important. That’s what Paul’s saying. The most important thing is that we belong to God. That we believe in the Jewish Messiah, have been forgiven, adopted into his family, have full inheritance in Christ, we belong to Him.

Sociologists call that a superordinate identity, a kind of higher order identity which governs everything else. So the kind of husband and worker that I am will be influenced by that most important identity of mine that I’m known and loved by God and I believe in His Messiah.

Interestingly of all the world’s religions the Christian faith is the most culturally adaptable. Most of the world’s religions impose a certain culture. Christian faith does not do that at its best. Every culture has both good and unique elements. And at its best, Christianity does not impose a culture of its own. Rather, it looks to redeem our various cultures. Biblical texts such as Isaiah 60 and Revelation 21 and 22 depict a renewed perfect future world in which we retain our cultural differences. And in the beautiful vision of Revelation 21 and 22, you have every tongue, tribe, people, nation. They still are identified as coming from a certain tongue, tribe, people, and nation. Even though we are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, as important as Galatians 3:28 is, there is an identity, and it’s true, that goes deeper than your cultural background. I don’t think it means there’s no space for cultural expression. Now, I think Jewish cultural expression is slightly more important than all other cultural expressions because as we’ve seen, Israel in biblical terms is not just another culture. It’s the seed through which blessing has come to the world. In Romans 9:11, we saw that Israel still plays a big part in God’s plans. The word of God has not failed.

And in Galatians 6, Paul wishes mercy on the Israel of God.

In Romans 11 he states that by God’s mercy all Israel will be saved when the deliverer will come from Zion and will take all godlessness away from Jacob according to His covenant and take away their sins.

Questions

Question 1. Some replacement theology exponents argue that a passage like Romans 4:13 which describe Abraham as being heir of the world suggest that there’s been a widening of the regional Canaan promise into a global or cosmic sphere. So in replacement theology, the seed is no longer Abraham’s natural descendants. It’s anyone who believes in the Jewish Messiah. And the land is no longer the land of Israel, formerly Canaan, but it’s the whole world. What do you think about that?

Answer. We often get in trouble when we create an “either or” issue out of a “both and”. And so yes, there is blessing that is cosmic that extends across the entirety of the creation. But saying that doesn’t nullify the idea that the only way Israel has peace among the nations is to have peace among the nations and to be at peace where she resides in the midst of the nations. So my response is the idea that salvation is ultimately cosmic doesn’t nullify where we started. It’s just like gentile inclusion doesn’t mean Israelite exclusion, global and cosmic salvation doesn’t exclude shalom within that cosmos for Israel.

Question: My question was more when I got into this arguments where you have a different style of covenant. You have one that is conditional like contractual where both people agree to the covenant and then you have one like given after the Mosaic law where God even put people to sleep and still made a covenant. So there could be no agreement and no punishment because the person getting the covenant didn’t even know it was happening as they were knocked out. Is that sort of like a decent argument against some of the supersessionism out there or is it just a bit lame to talk about different types of covenants?

Answer. The reason for mentioning the term oath is because God makes a commitment. He swears He’s going to do something and the onus is totally on Him to make it happen. That’s also why I mentioned the many passages in which there is disobedience and yet God continues to hang in there with Israel, which is God showing His mercy. And so, I think if you read the text carefully and you watch where it’s taking you, it and you use all the passages, you end up getting the answers to these questions that people are asking. What tends to happen is people have certain passages that they like and they latch on to, but then they forget the other passages that might help us qualify or frame the passages the passages that are there. And what you’ve heard us do pretty consistently between the two of us is there are certain texts that are very clear and then there are other texts that come alongside and help us understand either what’s going on or that frame the conversation for us. When I make a distinction between law as in relationship to promise versus law as stipulation and ask which lens are we talking about the law through in a particular passage. That’s an important option to be aware of as you deal with law. Because if you handle all the texts, if they’re about stipulation, you get in trouble. And if you handle all the law texts being about promise, you’ll get in trouble because in some cases I’m looking through one lens and another case I’m looking through another. And usually somewhere in the mix there are key indications about how the text should be taken. And like I said, that’s why I talked about oath. Now let me tell you why oath is important. Because what in the end we are saying is that the commitment that God has made to Israel rests not on Israel but on God and His character and His faithfulness.

And I would much rather have theology be resting in the character and faithfulness of God than having it rest anywhere else. So this is a very important theme that shows God’s mercy and it underscores one other thing I talked about grace. The point of grace is that we get what we receive not because we bring anything to it but because God has gifted us out of His mercy. Ephesians 2 says it beautifully. God being rich in mercy raised and seated us together in Christ in the heavenly places. And so ask yourself this. Would you rather barter with God and hope that you did enough to get God’s approval or would you rather receive a gift from God that says, “You know what? Out of my mercy, I’ve done it for you. You make the call.”

Question: Can you can you tell us what are the consequences do you think and maybe history can tell us a little bit about this of bad theology when it comes to Israel and in particular replacement theology? What are the consequences?

Answer. I think Paul answered that question for us in Romans 11. One of the consequences is that one portion of the people of God can become arrogant against another portion of the people of God. That’s not supposed to happen. What’s supposed to happen is that we all see that we were in the same boat with the same need. All having need for the same Savior for the same reasons. Maybe for having committed different sins but the same need. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

The other thing that it does is it raises questions about the character of God because it appears that God is saying one thing in the Old Testament and then looks to be saying something new. And if we make that an “either or” rather than a “both and”, then we actually cancel out the integrity of God. Those who hold to replacement theology and speak of it as fulfillment, who see fulfillment in Christ and say that Christ is the answer to all of this, they actually have that right. But the flip side of that is that if I don’t see it as a “both and” people can be connected to blessing through Christ and it comes through Christ alone, but if I throw out Israel in the mix then I’ve got a whole series of passages where God seemed to say (the book of Hosea says it beautifully) and it’s the metaphor of in the midst of unfaithfulness “I’m going to hang on in my relationship with you”. That’s what God is saying to Israel. And if He said it, but He didn’t really mean it for them. That’s a problem. Because it can set the stage for an antisemitism that is a real danger today. Unfortunately, most people don’t see it when they do it, but it’s there and it’s real and it’s potentially toxic. Not just toxic to our society. It’s also potentially toxic within the church.

Appendix: Romans 11:17-21

Paul told the Christians in Rome, ^“If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.”

Acknowledgement

This post is based on a presentation by Dr Darrell Bock of the of the Dallas Theological Seminary.

Dr. Brian Rosner is a senior lecturer and ex-principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia.

Posted, September 2026