For those who care to listen, my sermon Sunday was on the subject of the identity of true Israel. The subject of this sermon is controversial among many Baptist today because of our 100 years of Dispensational influences. (Click here for Audio link)
This sermon was not preached because I desired to be controversial.
This sermon was not preached because I desired to rebuke my Dispensationalist colleagues.
This sermon was preached because the text demanded it. I have been preaching exegetically through John’s Gospel and an currently in chapter 8. Jesus told some Jews that Abraham was not their father. That has to be explained and the explanation has important soteriological ramifications.
This is not replacement theology which teaches that the Church replaces Israel, but this is Covenant Theology which teaches that God has only one elect which is called by different names throughout the Bible. God’s elect was in Noah’s ark, within the nation Israel, in the Nineveh audience of Jonah, within the New Testament churches, Jew and Gentile, bond and free, male and female.
I wonder if we understand the ramifications of the reality that we are Israel; we are the temple of God, His royal priesthood. Is God’s glory upon us?
Here are some quotes from my sermon manuscript:
“Jesus was teaching the important truth that God is interested in spiritual descent rather than physical ancestry.”
“Now if you think that Jesus is saying that there is a difference between being an ethnic Jew and a spiritual Jew, then you are right.”
“Election and calling by God, together with a response of faith, makes any Gentile into a Jew, just like it made the Gentile Abram a Jew.”
“Whatever has been promised to Abraham and his children in the Old Testament belongs equally to everyone who is in Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles in a racial sense.”
“So, too, Paul and Jesus emphasize that salvation is not by race, or nationality but by individual obedience to the Gospel. It was true in the days of Noah, the days of Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, John the Baptist, Nicodemus, Woman at the well, Peter, Paul, John, Augustine, Calvin, Spurgeon, in our day, or in any future day. It is salvation according to the Bible by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone.”
“If you are in Christ then you are a joint-heir of all those blessings. All the promises given to true Israel are fulfilled and realized in Christ and are now for you to enjoy.”
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
How is this not replacement theology? The Wikipedia entry defines it as the traditional Christian belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and therefore that Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah fall short of their calling as God’s chosen people.
John,
It can’t be called replacement theology if the Church has always existed. True, elect Israel of the OT were basically Christians according to CT, so there really wasn’t anything to replace. The Abraham Covenant just opened up to include true, elect gentiles with true elect Israel.
Of course, that idea sort of minimalizes the “newness” expressed in scripture concerning the New Covenant.
Fred
John, in all fairnes, shouldn’t the burden be on you to prove how it is replacement theology?
Let me point out the subtle difference as I see it.
Your quote, “…Jews who deny that Jesus is the Messiah fall short of their calling as God’s chosen people.”
Further down from the same wikipedia page under Covenant Theology we find, “has as one of its core teachings the idea that the covenant with the Old Testament nation of Israel is continued in the historical Christian church” and “which was to be found in the people of Israel in the years before Christ, and in the international church in the years after Christ.”
One is a replacement and the other a continuation.
Fred and JohnMark, you hit the nail on the head. In fact, I believe in many ways dispensationalism is more of a replacement theology, but that is for a different discussion.
Fred, why did you say that CT minimalizes the “newness” of the New Covenant. Covenant Theology amplifies the “newness”!! Rather than a new dispensation, we have a consummation! The “newness” is not the substance of the New Covenant but the nature of it, because the types are fulfilled, the Messiah comes, His kingdom is established, and the Gospel of faith in Christ is no longer mysteriously revealed in bricks/stones/land/and government but in flesh and blood and in the hearts of His elect!
The view described in the sermon has to be imported into the text of the bible. It’s simply not there. It doesn’t even shake hands with the text…Replacement theology? Of course it is. God is faithful to Israel even when they were/are unfaithful not because of them but because of His names sake:
Ezekiel 36:19-38 ESV
(19) I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them.
(20) But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, and yet they had to go out of his land.’
(21) But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came.
(22) “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.
(23) And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.
(24) I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.
(25) I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
(26) And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
(27) And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
(28) You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
(29) And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you.
(30) I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations.
(31) Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations.
(32) It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.
(33) “Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt.
(34) And the land that was desolate shall be tilled, instead of being the desolation that it was in the sight of all who passed by.
(35) And they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.’
(36) Then the nations that are left all around you shall know that I am the LORD; I have rebuilt the ruined places and replanted that which was desolate. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it.
(37) “Thus says the Lord GOD: This also I will let the house of Israel ask me to do for them: to increase their people like a flock.
(38) Like the flock for sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts, so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the LORD.”
~BL
Oh yeah, read Romans Ch. 11…
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness 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 banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
(Romans 11:25-26 ESV)
I am accused of eisogesis from a guy who’s blog is called “Things The Lord Told Me” which he then further explains as “These are some of the things I have come to know over the years since I became a Christian. Some, God has told me through His word, some through other people, and some are my best shot at what I believe to be the biblical and accurate view on things…”
But hey, since you are “only two years removed from Arminianism”, I will just say, WELCOME brother and thanks for the comments. I hope you keep reading and learning and reforming.
By the way, how much of the sermon did you listen to?
A question for the dispensationalists: Is there now, at this point in time, a jewish remnant?
Oh dear, this is obviously a topic which makes people edgy.
I don’t like the term “replacement theology” and I don’t use it. But you linked to the Wikipedia article that Replacement Theology is fulfilment theology – it “does not on its own terms theorize a replacement; instead it argues that Israel has been superseded only in the sense that the Church has been entrusted with the fulfillment of the promises of which Jewish Israel is the trustee…”
So it’s only ever called Replacement Theology by those who disagree with it. But the Wikipedia article needs to be revised (any takers?) – it doesn’t explain how CT fits in with RT.
Actually, it’s occurred to me that Replacement Theology functions in a similar way to “once saved always saved.” I don’t believe “once saved always saved” myself, but I were to explain what I believe concerning the Perseverance of the Saints, someone will ask me, “How is that different to once saved always saved?”
“I am accused of eisogesis from a guy who’s blog is called “Things The Lord Told Me”…” = Genetic Fallacy?
But I do like the mild sarcasm in your reply…and obviously my blog title is a bit sarcastic itself…thanks for welcoming me to the “Reformed” faith…it’s good to be here!
Jason:
I wish every once in a while you would venture outside of the safe, easy areas of theology and address things that might not be popular among your fellow Baptists!
Great quotes from your sermon. Keep preaching!
-a fellow Jew and joint-heir according to the promise
Fred, why did you say that CT minimalizes the “newness” of the New Covenant. Covenant Theology amplifies the “newness”!! Rather than a new dispensation, we have a consummation! The “newness” is not the substance of the New Covenant but the nature of it, because the types are fulfilled, the Messiah comes, His kingdom is established, and the Gospel of faith in Christ is no longer mysteriously revealed in bricks/stones/land/and government but in flesh and blood and in the hearts of His elect!
(Fred) I was attempting to be a bit provocative with my comments. Generally, I would agree with your understanding of God’s purposes in salvation history is dealing with His elect who related to God in differing ways (That may not be the most concise way of saying it). In other words, God has always had His elect. The godly line of Seth, Abraham and his household, the nation of Israel, and then the Church. But here, with this construct, there is both Covenant and Dispensational elements, though it is better to say elements of discontinuity and continuity. Continuity in that it is always the elect who are in view with God’s purposes. Discontinuity in that God lays aside, or expands upon, or fulfills those purposes through different means.
As for my comment about how CT minimalizes the “newness” of the New Covenant, I say that for a few reasons.
One, lots of CTers insist that there isn’t anything specifically “new” about the new covenant, it is just the Abrahamic covenant renewed with the elect that now includes the gentiles. This is the position of the curator of A Puritan Mind Thus, there isn’t any thing specifically distinct about Jesus as opposed to Moses or Abraham, other than to say He is God in the flesh.
Moreover, there is nothing particularly special about the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost with many of the CTers I have discussed these things with in the past. The Holy Spirit is doing the same thing now in the NT age as He was in the OT. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit wasn’t to create a new body of believers with the spiritual head of Christ, but to just include the elect gentiles into the already elect Israel.
Then third, and probably the most annoying aspect of CT, is their insistence that Abraham, Moses and David and other OT saints fully understood who Jesus Christ was, His person and work, and the OT saints were really proto-Christians before Jesus came. They will cite such passages as Hebrews 11:24,25, even citing the KJV translation where it says Moses was willing to suffer the reproaches of Christ, and claim it was the person of Jesus Moses had in mind, even though that is not what the text is saying.
Now it may be that perhaps you don’t fall under any of my objections, and I don’t want to object out of andectodal stories about CT, but I have spoken with and interacted with plenty of CTers to know what I am talking about here, and in my thinking, these points minimalize the “newness” of the new covenant.
Fred
Tom, thanks for encouragment!
Dekker, I agree that Wikipedia’s definition of this issue in relation to CT needs to be revised. I would recommend that we strongly Gene M. Bridges to do such, his writing skills impress me.
Fred, thanks for your explanations. You brought up issues that I hope to discuss at length in future posts, because (you are right) there are some differing views among us all.
I do believe that OT saints were Christian in their faith, but I also don’t believe that they “fully understood.” Rather, I believe there remained mysteries until the New Covenant was fully explained by Paul.
Also, I believe that all the convenants included Gentiles, if not Abram would have never been saved, or Enoch, or Noah, or Rahab, or the people of Nineveh.
Again, the newness of the NC is seen more in the nature of it rather than its ethnic target.
Hey guys would you like to ask Jason a question in person? He is going to be in the Unchained Radio studio on Thursday morning 08/31 at 9am California time. You can call in and ask him a question (on this subject) at 1-800-466-1873
One of the questions I have is that if Romans 11, for example, is speaking of today’s people in modern day Israel which are physical decendants of Abraham, how do we know? In other words, what proof is there that modern day “Israelites” are the actual physical decendants of Abraham?
I also have some iquiries concerning participation in the New Covenant in relation to celebrating the Lord’s Supper. How can Christians participate if the NC is made with the “Jews” and not “Christians”?
Mark
Jason,
Just a quick comment and question. In your post, you wrote:
this is Covenant Theology which teaches that God has only one elect which is called by different names throughout the Bible.
Election and calling by God, together with a response of faith, makes any Gentile into a Jew, just like it made the Gentile Abram a Jew
Does it help to say that Abram “became” a Jew? Or to proclaim that Gentiles “become” Jews when they believe? If we are all (and by “all” I don’t mean everyone, just us elected) elect, then doesn’t the use of ethnic terms simply confuse the issue?
I mean, technically speaking, was Abraham a “Jew” or “Gentile”? He was pre-Israel, and certainly pre-Judah.
Jason, here is one of your quotes:
Election and calling by God, together with a response of faith, makes any Gentile into a Jew, just like it made the Gentile Abram a Jew.
Could you provide some scriptural support for making Abraham a jew?
Sojourner, I would say technically he was both.
After reading my answer I now have a question for Jason. What makes someone an ethnic Jew? It seems that technically that is not possible since what made one a Jew is not necesarrily hertiage i.e. Ishmael and Esau.
Scott, good question. The answer is quite simple though, and you know it:
A Jew was one who was circumcised according to the Abrahamic Covenant. That made one an ethnic Jew in the Old Testament. That ethnic nation was typologically representing the family of God and the kingdom of Christ.
Eventually both the type and the mark of physical circumcision was no longer needed or used. The type was fulfilled in Christ and circumcision is used by both Jews and Gentiles as a medical procedure.
Today, if you feel like you are an ethnic Jew you can just declare yourself one as far as I know. Most Jewish writing that I have read said that they prefer that at least your mother was of Jewish decent, but that is not necessarily enforced.
Hey, is there a covenant where I can become Japanese if I get circumcised?
On second thought, I think I might just declare myself Japanese. Maybe no one will know the difference.
Yes, but it has to be administered with a Samuri sword.
Calvdispy, since your sarcasm (which I am not against by the way) has made you a target then how would you answer the question posed above about becoming an ethnic Jew.
My original question was asked because obviously Ishmael and Esau were direct descendents of Abraham, but scripture does not consider them Jews. So there has to be more than just being Abrahams kid. What is the something more?
“God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” is the constant refrain. The promise of land was given to the 12 sons of Jacob to whom the promise is narrowed (not withstanding half-son calculations). Israelites subsequently were identified with the 12 tribes who formed the nation and thus the ethnic identity thereafter.
And like a good Dispy, you believe that those 12 tribes still exist, or can exist in the future.
Which tribe was Rahab in?
Which tribe was the believers of Nineveh in?
Why does Paul say that Jews are no longer known by physical circumcision in Romans 2:26? Because it never has been, is, or ever will be about an ethnic group or physical nation.
Why does Paul ask in Romans 3:29, “Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles?’ Because people then and now still believe that God’s chosen people are ethnic Jews when they always have been the elect of all nations.
Why did Paul say in Romans 4:13, “For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith”?
1. This verse makes it clear that the promised land was not just a piece of land in the Middle East, but the world. That promise is only fulfilled in Heaven and the new Earth according to the Book of Hebrews.
2. The promise was not to those who were merely circumcised according to the law, but those whom were circumcised of the heart by faith. That is explained by John the Baptist, Jesus, other Pauline epistles, Peter, John, and the writer of Hebrews.
Calvdispy, you must not forget that the 12 tribes are used by God as a type not as a the actual fulfillment. Christ is the fulfillment, and anyone in Him is “true Israel.” That would be anyone in Him in the Old Testament, New Testament, current day, or future. If your system of theology is not Christ-centered, but man centered, then you miss the whole point of the types and get hung up on focusing on the ethnic, national Israel.
I am sorry you seem so irritated with dispensationalists. I do not speak for all dispensationalists since much of classic dispensationalism in my mind suffers from the same problem classic Covenant Theology does – that of imposing a system on the exegesis of scripture.
I come from a circle of dispensationalists that have much in common with Reformed Theology (i.e. John MacArthur). I have come to appreciate much from my Reformed brethren and consider myself Reformed in much of my thinking. I stand together with my Reformed brethren in the doctrines of grace and have failed to see the oft sought connection between dispensationalism and Arminianism that many CTers try to make. There is a lot of unwarranted GBA going on there I believe.
I think what has been wonderful with ventures like T4G is that like-minded Evangelicals from different doctrinal convictions in secondary matters (i.e. Baptists, Presbyterians and Lord forbid, non-cessationists) can come together and stand for the Gospel in an age that needs faithful believers to be clear on this matter.
I don’t want to debate with you because you guys are much too smart for me – I’d get smashed no doubt. I sought to poke fun in jest, not to make you irritated. I also sought clarification in the other post that seemed to insinuate that MacArthur holds to CW. I am certain he does not. Yet, the essence of what CW proposes is not far from how he or others not committed to CW or CT would construe the problem of man’s depravity and its remedy in imputation.
I have enjoyed your blog and what you generally stand for, don’t think I am an enemy because we disagree about CT and Dispensatinalism.
Calvdispy, don’t worry we don’t consider you an enemy. You might be surprised how much more we associate with dispy’s than we even do with CT’ers. So, no, friend we aren’t mad at you or irritated. So don’t hesitate to continue interacting with Fide-O. Any injuries your feeling incur are done in love
I must admit that this issue with Dr. MacArthur is going to make me go study some more of his beliefs on this issue. He is the first person I ever heard deal with the probationary period in the garden. Which as far as I can tell is not a dispensational standard belief.
I think Sproul overstates his case in the matter. The basic issues that lead to an understanding of imputation I do not believe presuppose belief in CW. Read Piper’s “Counted Righteous in Christ” or what D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo and others not identified with CT say about imputation and I think they come to the same basic conclusions without endorsing CW. These men are not Dispensationalists. I believe MacArthur would be in this same basic camp though he is more of a dispensationalist. I think it is disingenuous to say imputation is necessarily connected to CW.
Concerning Piper, I would direct you to the Desiring God website
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/95/1439_What_does_John_Piper_believe_about_dispensationalism_covenant_theology_and_new_covenant_theology
before you speak any more for Piper. Here on Piper’s website he has an article that explains that he is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium. Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works.
Furthermore, in 1981 Piper wrote: “In the beginning God the Father, through the agency of his eternal Son, created out of nothing all that is not God by the word of his command; and moment by moment he holds in being all things by that same word of power so that everything which comes into existence is his peculiar creation. Therefore, God owns all things, has a purpose for all things, and on him all things depend absolutely. As the owner of the world he has the right to do with us as he pleases. What pleases him is the fulfillment of his purpose to fill the earth with the knowledge of his glory. Therefore, the full-time vocation of all God’s creatures should be to glorify him by acknowledging his lordship and by living in complete, childlike dependence on his mercy to give us everything that is good for us.”
“But in Genesis 3 the story is told how our first parents became enamored by the possibility of not relying on God’s merciful provision, not living for his glory, and not advancing his purpose in creation. Lured by Satan, they chose rather to reject God’s loving counsel and to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and become like God. The moment of man’s fall into sin was the moment when childlike dependence on the heavenly Father began to seem distasteful, uncomfortable, unfulfilling. And the fall was complete when the desire of man to rule his own life and promote his own glory became so strong that he scorned the wisdom and power and love of God by rejecting God’s provision of abundant life. And with Adam fell the whole human race. We all come into the world with a nature that is prone to sin. From the dawn of human history through all generations the essence of sin has been self-reliance and self-exaltation. It is not merely the heinous crimes of men that inflame the righteous wrath of God, but also the seemingly innocent self-deification behind these crimes that robs God of his glory. Therefore, there is a terrible enmity between man in his natural condition and God. The natural heart will not submit to God (Romans 8:7), but seeks its own glory (John 5:44) and, therefore, deeply resists the call of God to turn and become like little children and enter the kingdom (Matthew 18:3). And from God’s side, his righteousness will not allow him to be indifferent to the defamation of his glory, for he says, “How should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another” (Isaiah 48:11). Hence the terrible gulf and enmity between fallen man and holy God. And hence the helplessness of humanity under God’s righteous condemnation.”
But in short lets think about the implications for a moment. We believe that Adam and humanity were cursed at the Fall. Cursed is the opposite of God’s Blessing (that is taught throughout Scripture). So in the Garden there was the possibility of blessing and cursing, thus agreements and rules are set. Life and Death is at stake. Relationships are at stake. This is a covenant environment.
Now, fast forward to today. Do we need the imputation of Christ’s righteousness because of our failure to keep the Mosaic Covenant? Were we cursed because we failed to keep the Law given to Moses? Or were we first cursed, imputed with unrighteousness at the Fall of Adam.
Obviously, the answer to that question is that it is the Fall of Adam that is the Genesis of our problem. That it why Paul exegeted Genesis 1-3 in Romans when explainin our need of Christ’s imputed righteousness. If one believe’s that Christ’s imputation was not linked to Adam but was for our own sinfulness alone, then one has denied original sin and universal sin. It is upon this truth that even many premillennialists like Piper and MacArthur agree with CT. In fact, Dr. MacArthur calls himself a “leaky Dispy” because of issues like this. In his 1 Cor. commentary he talks of Adam’s probationary condition in the Garden. Probation necessitates a testing was taking place; will the covenant be kept or broken. Probation is covenant language.
Most of my hero’s are Reformed Theologians too. Without scrutinizing each sentence, at first glance I agree with everything Piper said in your quote. Maybe a classic dispy would not, I am not certain. However, Piper says nothing about a covenant, probably because Gen. 1-3 says nothing about a covenant.
Both Augustine and W. G. T. Shedd held to seminal headship to explain original sin. I am not aware how that cannot include Christ’s imputation in the matter of our justification. I believe the verb dierchomai in Rom. 5:12 which has the denotative meaning, “to pass through” can bear the weight of seminal transmission. Levi is spoken of as “in the loins” of Abraham in Heb. 7:10. F. F. Bruce states that, “an ancestor is regarded in biblical thought as containing within himself all his descendants.” This is not incompatible with seminal headship and subsequently Christ’s imputation. I also believe the implications of the virgin birth makes more sense if one accepts seminal headship.
The link on Piper also said concerning CT that, “he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.” This would suggest to me that he is not a CT (at least yet anyway). Do you suppose it is possible to hold to some notion of CW as CT concieves it without buying into CT as a whole or does it comes as a package deal in your estimation? Just curious.