Is The Church The Expansion of Israel?

The creator of the YouTube video channel titled “When We Understand the Text” (WWUTT), Pastor Gabriel Hughes, published a video called “Has the Church Replaced Israel?” His videos are incredibly well done and generally speaking they are very helpful.

In this video Pastor Hughes quotes a handful of verses to support his claim that, “The church is the expansion of Israel [not a replacement for Israel].” I assume his intention with this statement is to correct what he considers an erroneous label “replacement theology.” Many covenant theologians claim dispensationalists impose the title “replacement theology,” but this is simply not the case. Many people who hold to supersessionism or fulfillment theology (which ever label you prefer) have used the title “replacement theology” in the past. As Michael Vlach says, “Those who espouse the supersessionists view are partly to credit or blame for this title since they often have used replacement terminology themselves.” (Vlach, Michael, “Various Forms of Replacement Theology,” TMSJ 20/1, Spring 2009, pp57-69). For the purposes of this article, I’ll avoid that label, but it doesn’t change the conclusions of Pastor Hughes in this video.

I desire in this blog post to address the verses he quotes and his conclusion that “the church is the expansion of Israel.” And for convenience sake I will use the label “supersessionist(s)” as a synonym for “fulfillment theology.”

Acts 1:6-8, Will the Lord Restore the Kingdom to Israel?

Pastor Hughes begins with Acts 1:6-8 and states, “In other words, Jesus was saying that the preaching of the gospel will be the revival of Israel. Whoever believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ is true Israel.” But is his conclusion warranted?

What is the context of these verses? In verse 3, Luke tells us that Jesus presented himself alive to his disciples after his suffering for forty days. Besides convincing them of his resurrection, what was he teaching them for forty days? Verse 3 states, “things concerning the kingdom of God.” After Christ commands his disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit, they ask him “Lord, is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” What kingdom are they referring to? Likely the kingdom Jesus had been teaching them for forty days.

Supersessionists would have us believe that the disciples were still mistaken in their understanding of a literal earthly kingdom for national Israel. But is this likely after having spent forty days being taught by their resurrected Lord about the nature of God’s kingdom? Not hardly.

The Lord does not correct their expectations. He simply states, “It’s not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” Jesus connects the “times” and “seasons” with the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel. That restoration will happen at the Father’s determined time.

In verse 8, Jesus says, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth [i.e. Gentile nations].” The Greek conjunction ἀλλὰ (but-rather, on the other hand) is intended to shift the disciples’ focus from the kingdom of Israel to their commission in this season prior to the time of Israel’s restoration. This current season is referred to elsewhere by Christ as “the time of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), or as Paul says, “…until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25). The disciples are not to know the time of Israel’s restoration, but they are to know their commission to gentile nations during this age and by whom they are to be empowered.

The text simply does not say what Pastor Hughes concludes. In fact, it says just the opposite.  The text maintains the biblical distinction between the time of the Gentiles and the kingdom of Israel. And I would be remiss to mention that this text was central in pushing me towards dispensationalism, so I found it ironic he began with this passage.

Galatians 6:15-16, Who is the Israel of God?

Galatians 6:16 is a common text used to support the idea that Israel has expanded to include the church. But does the bible really identify the church as Israel? S. Lewis Johnson said, “Persistent efforts to explain ‘the Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16 as a reference to the church defy overwhelming grammatical, exegetical, and theological evidence that the expression refers to ethnic Israel.” (Johnson, Lewis, “Paul and ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” TMSJ 20/1, Spring 2009, pp41-55,).

Supersessionists interpret verse 16 by arguing that the term “Israel of God” is to be connected explicatively to “all who follow this rule (i.e. the new creation in v.15),” meaning, all believers whether Jew or Gentile. They also point back to the fact that those who are in Christ by faith may be called “the seed of Abraham” (Gal 3:29). But does this make one a Jew? No, Abraham’s fatherhood extends beyond ethnic Israel since he believed prior to being recognized as a Hebrew (Rom 4:9-16).

There are historically two other interpretations of Galatians 6:16. One is the view that the words “Israel of God” refer simply to believing ethnic Israelites in the church. Second is the view, with some variation, that the “Israel of God” refers eschatologically to future believing ethnic Israel. I believe both are valid.

In context of the letter to the Galatians, I think Paul is specifically referring to believing ethnic Israelites within the Christian Church. He is arguing for the doctrine of justification by grace through faith apart from circumcision. In doing so, he has attacked the Judaizers. So it is likely he ends his letter by extending mercy and peace to true believing Jews who are the “remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5, Isaiah 54:10) and who have come out of the kind of legalism he abhors. This is consistent with Paul’s constant sensitivity to his fellow Jews.

But there is grammatical support for this interpretation as well. The argument that Paul is explaining “those who walk by this rule” as the “Israel of God,” is usually presented by using the explanatory sense of the conjunction Καὶ (and).  But this usage of Καὶ is not the common use of the word in Greek literature (see G.B. Winer’s, “A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek” and Vincent’s Word Studies). Thus, to interpret a conjunction according to its uncommon use is forcing a meaning into the text that just isn’t clear enough for support. And had Paul intended this, he likely would have dropped the Καὶ after “mercy.”

Simply put, to read all true believers including Gentiles into the title “the Israel of God,” thus making it equal to the church, is highly suspect. Plus, to interpret this title as the remnant of believing ethnic Jews harmonizes with the entirety of scripture.

Romans 2:28-29, “A Jew is one inwardly”

The context of Romans chapters 1-3 is righteousness (1:17), the wrath of God (1:18), the righteous judgement of God (2:5), obedience to the Law (2:8), and how a man is justified in God’s sight (3:20). The context is not about “the expansion of Israel.”

Jews believed they were justified by their physical circumcision. In Romans 2, Paul is condemning all Jews due to their disobedience to the Law of God. Jews had the incredible privilege of receiving God’s written law (3:2). Yet only the “doers of the law will be justified” (2:13). Circumcision is of no value to a Jew when he breaks the law. Thus, he will be regarded as uncircumcised (2:25). This doesn’t make him a Gentile; rather, it makes him unrighteous.

To prove this point, Paul uses the example of the “uncircumcised man” (2:26). This is a Gentile. If this man “keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” Paul doesn’t say this man becomes a Jew. Rather, because the Jews believed that circumcision made them righteous before God, Paul is saying that a Gentile who actually keeps the law will be “regarded” in the same manner – as righteous. Therefore, circumcision doesn’t count for righteousness.

This is parallel to the argument Paul makes in Romans 4:11. Abraham was regarded righteous by faith before he was circumcised. So righteousness is counted to an uncircumcised man by faith as well. That doesn’t make the Gentile a Jew. In fact, a righteous Gentile condemns the unrighteous Jew (2:28).

In context then, Paul’s conclusion regarding the Jews is this, “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical” (2:28). I quote the ESV and I emphasize the term “merely.”  A true Jew is not merely physically circumcised, but also spiritually circumcised. True circumcision is “a matter of the heart, by the Spirit” (2:29). Thus an ethnic Jew is only righteous when his heart has been circumcised. It’s the same concept presented in Galatians 6:16 – righteous Jews are true Jews.

Even if my interpretation is incorrect, and Paul is saying righteous Gentiles in a sense are spiritual Jews, it does not follow that earthly promises to national Israel have been superseded. The context of the passage is not about that.

Romans 9:6, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” 

Some supersessionists would have us read Romans 9:6 as follows, “Not all who are descended from ethnic Israel belong to spiritual Israel, the church.” But the text doesn’t say that, nor does Paul intend to broaden the title Israel to include believing Gentiles.

As I argued from Galatians 6:16, the Israel of God – spiritual Israel – is all believing, ethnic Jews. There is an Israel within ethnic Israel. Simply put, believing Jews are the true Israel.

The argument of Romans 9 is that the promises made to Israel have not failed but would be fulfilled to a remnant of believing Jews, chosen by grace (11:5). In defense of this argument, Paul argues from the Old Testament in support of God’s sovereign right to choose which of Abraham’s descendants would receive the promise – “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls” (v. 11).

After defending God’s justice in regards to election, he expands the promise of God’s electing grace to Gentiles (v. 24-26). He’s not saying Gentiles become Israel. Paul is applying Hosea 1-2 to disobedient Gentiles – “those who are not my people” – that God will make them his own. God’s electing purpose for Gentiles corresponds to God’s election of Israel, and God expands the title of “my people” to Gentiles. But “concerning Israel… only a remnant of them will be saved” (v. 27). The distinctions between ethnic Israel, believing ethnic Israel, and Gentiles throughout Romans 9-11 are consistent.

So Romans 9:6 is not a supporting text for supersessionism. Plus, there is no getting around the fact that Paul explicitly states that to his kinsmen, “according to the flesh… belong (present tense)… the promises” (9:3-4).

Romans 11, “…all Israel will be Saved.”

Some supersessionists believe “all Israel” in Romans 11:26 refers to the church. There is major difficulty with this interpretation. For in 11:28, Paul says “from the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake.” Between verses 26 and 28, Paul has not grammatically changed the people group he’s referring to – the “they” in verse 28 is the “Israel” of verse 26. If these supersessionists were consistent, they would have to conclude that the church is regarded as an enemy! But if Israel means national Israel as a whole, then there is no conflict.

The better way to read this is to follow Paul’s logic. In 11:25 he states that a “partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” Here, ethnic Israel is distinct from the Gentiles. Ethnic Israel has been partially hardened both in time (“until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”) and in quantity (since a remnant of Jews have believed). Why? According to 11:11, Israel stumbled in order to bring “salvation to the Gentiles so as to make Israel jealous.”

Paul clearly uses the title Israel consistently to refer to ethnic Jews all through the book of Romans. Thus, there is no reason to change the meaning of “all Israel” in 11:26.

Now, this does not mean all Jews will be saved. But it does mean that when “the deliverer come[s] from Zion” (11:26) he will save ethnic Israel on that day. In the present, as regards to the gospel, Israel as a whole is an enemy for the sake of the Gentiles – Israel has been “cut off” from the olive tree (except for the remnant of Jews). “But as regards to election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” (Rom 9:4-5; 11:28). Therefore, in the future, they will be saved and grafted back in.

This future massive conversion of ethnic Jews is by far the majority view in church history (See B.L. Merkle, “Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel,” JETS 43 (200)). Even many supersessionists who reject an earthly fulfillment of the promises to national Israel interpret the text this way. They have to if they are going to be consistent with the text itself. Don’t argue against Paul here, lest you become tempted to be “arrogant toward the branches” and “be wise in your own sight” (Rom 11:18, 25).

That Dividing Wall

Many supersessionists claim that dispensationalism maintains a perpetual wall to divide “Israel” and “the Church.” See this comment by D. Scott Meadows.

Talk about a “red herring!” Dispensationalists do not divide Israel and the Church, they make a distinction between Israel and the Church. To prove there is no divide in dispensationalism, look no further than the example of the unity between the Church and Israel shown by “The Friends of Israel,” a ministry committed to dispensationalism. https://www.foi.org/

People who make this claim usually appeal to Ephesians 2 and Romans 11. In Ephesians 2:19 Paul argues that Gentiles are no longer “strangers to the covenants of promise, but are fellow citizens with the saints and are of God’s household.” By fulfilling the Mosaic Law, Christ has abolished the “diving wall of hostility” between Jew and Gentile created by “the Law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” There is unity and peace between believing Jew and Gentile who are both now “in Christ Jesus” and are made “one new man.” (2:14-16)

Paul also expresses the unity between Jew and Gentile in Romans 11 when he describes the olive tree. I interpret the “rich root of the olive tree” (11:17) to be the Abrahamic Covenant which not only included blessings to the nation of Israel, but to “all the families of the earth” (Gen 12:3). Paul is clear that Gentiles grafted into this olive tree are still a “wild olive shoot” (11:17) and unnatural branches (11:21). Gentiles do not become Israel, they are simply grafted into the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant which God had always intended to do.

Some supersessionists may also appeal to texts that say “there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile” (Romans 10:12, Gal 3:28, and Col 3:11). But those texts are referring to justification by faith, access to the Father, the electing grace of God, and/or the new creation of regeneration. None of those texts refer to distinctive roles in the Kingdom. Those texts also say there is no distinction between male and female, but Paul is not asserting there are no longer distinctions in gender roles. Look to the example of the Trinity where there are distinctions of roles within the three persons, but unity in the one being that is God. To say “there are no longer any distinctions” in the people of God refers to their unity in Christ and justification by faith alone, not in their God-given roles.

None of these texts state “the Church is the expansion of Israel” with heavenly promises superseding earthly promises made to national Israel. Rather, Gentiles are now “fellow heirs” and “partakers” (Eph 3:6) of those earthly promises. It would be more proper to say that the title “The People of God” has been expanded to Gentiles. But it is not proper to equate the Church with Israel. The title of Israel is used exclusively in scripture to refer to ethnic Israel.

Therefore, dispensationalists affirm that Gentiles in Christ share the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. There is no longer a “dividing wall of hostility.”

What This Means for Christians Today

Lastly, some supersessionists claim that dispensationalists divide the bible so that the Old Testament isn’t for Christians today.

 As I noted, the Abrahamic Covenant was not only intended for Israel, but for Gentiles as well. Also, the people in the church I previously attended were committed dispensationalists and taught for years, verse-by-verse, through books of the Old Testament. Not only that, I could make a case that dispensationalists are the only people who consistently take the Old Testament seriously.

So, is the Old Testament for Christians today, particularly Gentiles? Yes. First, God’s moral law extends into the New Testament with the Old Testament as our example (1 Corinthians 10:11). In that regard, we look to Abraham as a spiritual father of all who are justified by faith alone. Also, the Messiah and his gospel are prophesied throughout; explicitly in passages like Isaiah 53.

But importantly in the context of this blog post, the Old Testament prophets spoke of a day where the Lord Jesus Christ will return to the Mount of Olives (Zech 14:4) and as the true Israelite, the true Servant of God, restore national Israel. In that day, God will “pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child.” (Zech 12:10). On that day, after the Lord has defended the city of Jerusalem, “living waters shall flow out of Jerusalem… and the Lord will be king over all the earth.” (Zech 14:8).

Space does not permit the opportunity for me to describe the riches of both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant over the entire earth. Simply put, the Old Testament describes a day where Christ, as head of Israel, restores that nation and rules the earth from that nation to bless the entire world with peace, righteousness, and justice! And all those who are in Christ today will reign with him (2 Tim 2:12). What precious promises for all God’s people who serve Christ as King.

I share the sentiment of Vlach who wrote, “I hope that many Christians, too, would embrace the explicit biblical evidence concerning Israel and give God the glory that His electing purposes for Israel still stand.” For the hope of the restoration of Israel means “reconciliation” and “riches for the world” (Rom 11:12, 15) with our Lord as King!

I will end with a quote from the great puritan John Owen regarding what our prayer should be for Israel.

“Moreover, it is granted that there shall be a time and season during the continuance of the kingdom of the Messiah in this world, when the generality of the Jews all the world over, shall be called and effectually brought to the knowledge of the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ: with which mercy they shall also receive deliverance from their captivity, restoration to their own land, with a blessed, flourishing and happy condition therein… I only assert the thing itself, and have no cause, as to the end aimed at, to inquire into the time and manner of its accomplishment… The thing itself is acknowledged, as far as I can understand, by all who have any acquaintance with these things. Christians generally do assert it, look for it, pray for it, and have done so in all ages from the days of the apostles.” John Owen, “An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Volume 1, Exercitation XVIII, Section 10.